Assange's Lawyers: Follow Swedish Law, Interrogate Him In the UK

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Assange's Lawyers: Follow Swedish Law, Interrogate Him In the UK

Posted by samzenpus on Wednesday February 12, 2014 @10:27PM from the testimony-in-the-UK dept.

concertina226 writes "Lawyers representing Julian Assange have demanded that he be questioned in London over rape and sexual molestation allegations. 'Prosecutor Marianne Ny must ... start treating him as everybody else who is under suspicion. Assuming that the prosecutor does not have a prejudiced opinion regarding the question of guilt, and is prepared to treat the different versions objectively, it is obvious that an interrogation with Julian Assange would benefit everybody, including the injured parties,' the lawyers wrote."

377 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

or stop hiding... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-02-12 22:28 · Score: 0, Flamebait

or, how about stop hiding like a baby and face the accusation in Sweden?
1. Re:or stop hiding... by Goaway · 2014-02-12 22:30 · Score: 0, Flamebait
  
  Like, you know, "everybody else" would have to do?
2. Re:or stop hiding... by Another,+completely · 2014-02-12 22:43 · Score: 2
  
  That's something I still don't understand. Why does he claim the Americans could arrange an extradition from Sweden more readily than from the UK?
3. Re:or stop hiding... by geogob · 2014-02-12 22:46 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  My understanding was that there was no charge (or accusation) filed in Sweden. A compaint has been filed and he was wanted for interrogation over the filed complaint. Considering the deeper implications of travelling into Sweeden, I can understand his reluctance to do so, especially if he believes the complaint as no bases.
  Under the circumstances, en interrogation in England is the best solution for every parties. If, following the interrogation, formal charges are layed and is is accused of rape, his situation will change anyway and probably won't have the choice to face the charges there, regardless where he is.
4. Re:or stop hiding... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-02-12 22:47 · Score: 0
  
  Isn't he on Ecuadorian soil, that happens to be located in the UK?
5. Re:or stop hiding... by djmurdoch · 2014-02-12 22:47 · Score: 2
  
  or, how about stop hiding like a baby
  
  ... said the anonymous coward.
6. Re:or stop hiding... by DeathToBill · 2014-02-12 22:52 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Yes, but the reason he's there is that the UK seemed to be about to extradite him to Sweden. He was quite happy living in the UK so long as it didn't mean going to Sweden.
  It's the fatal flaw in dear old Julian's argument: He's worried about the Americans getting hold of him, so he'd rather stay in the UK where extradition to the US is easy, rather than go to Sweden where extradition to the US is much harder. Or maybe there's another reason....
  What that other reason is is hard to tell, exactly. It might be that he is genuinely guilty-as-not-yet-charged in Sweden. Or it could just as easily be that he has an enormous ego, a superiority complex and a highly-developed paranoia that makes him see persecution in everything, whether it looks plausible to a sane person or not.
  
  --
  Slashdot - News for Nerds, Stuff that Matters, in ISO-8859-1 Has just realised that beta makes this signature redundant
7. Re:or stop hiding... by DeathToBill · 2014-02-12 22:54 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  What deeper implications of travelling into Sweden, exactly? You mean escaping the UK's we'll-give-you-anyone-you-ask-for extradition treaty with the USA? I can see how that would be a problem for him, yes.
  
  --
  Slashdot - News for Nerds, Stuff that Matters, in ISO-8859-1 Has just realised that beta makes this signature redundant
8. Re:or stop hiding... by FriendlyLurker · 2014-02-12 22:58 · Score: 1
  
  Here you go: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...
  
  Sweden is bound by different extradition agreements. It is not meant to grant onwards extradition to a third country without agreement from the extraditing country. But at the same level of the legal hierarchy there is a bilateral treaty between the US and Sweden that allows for extradition without consent from the UK or minimum tests. This is the temporary surrender/conditional release regime - automatic extradition on a loan basis.
9. Re:or stop hiding... by dbIII · 2014-02-12 23:03 · Score: 0
  
  It's fear of abduction instead of extradition. Look up "extreme rendition" for details. I think there was at least one of those in Sweden (it may have been elsewhere in Nth Europe) - but either way that's what he's worried about.
10. Re:or stop hiding... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-02-12 23:03 · Score: 0
  
  He wasn't always on Ecuadorian soil, he was in house arrest in the UK for quite some time until he decided to make a run for it and ended up at the Ecuadorian embassy. Amazing how short and/or selective memories people have when it suits them...
11. Re:or stop hiding... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-02-12 23:04 · Score: 0
  
  It would be a political death sentence for any UK politician to extradite him because the public opinion of the US is at an all time low in the UK. Sweden has bowed to US pressure before, it's run by extreme feminists, and they're extremely beta in general.
12. Re:or stop hiding... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-02-12 23:04 · Score: 0
  
  All Sweden needs to do is deport him. There are no direct flights to Australia, as in UK.
13. Re:or stop hiding... by dbIII · 2014-02-12 23:06 · Score: 0
  
  Or it could just as easily be that he has an enormous ego, a superiority complex
  Nearly everyone in US politics has both of those in far greater quantities. You need to find a better insult instead of that worn out talking point most likely dreamed up but a Senator's intern.
14. Re:or stop hiding... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-02-12 23:07 · Score: 0
  
  Where was it claimed he was *always* on Ecuadorian soil?
  He's been there for quite some time, but I don't see anybody asserting he was born and raised there and hasnever left...
  Amazing how people can jump to unfounded conclusions when it suits them...
15. Re:or stop hiding... by aliquis · 2014-02-12 23:07 · Score: 2
  
  Really?
  http://www.riksdagen.se/sv/Dok...
  http://translate.google.se/tra...
16. Re:or stop hiding... by Richard_at_work · 2014-02-12 23:08 · Score: 1
  
  What utter bullshit, and the usual pro-Assange smears when this shit comes up.
17. Re:or stop hiding... by jez9999 · 2014-02-12 23:12 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  Most "everybody else" is not being hunted by the United States. Frankly, if they want to call this an exception to the rule then yes, make an exception for Julain Assange and get of your ass and question him in the UK. This is indeed a special case.
  
  --
  == Jez ==
  Do you miss Firefox? Try Pale Moon.
18. Re:or stop hiding... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-02-12 23:12 · Score: 0
  
  Sure, why not. I hear the weather at Guantanamo is nice this time of year.
19. Re:or stop hiding... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-02-12 23:17 · Score: 1
  
  Funny stuff there... just a couple of weeks ago a guy was found not guilty of rape in sweden even though the woman protested and tried to get away and kept saying no, screaming and crying the whole time. These facts wasn't even disputed by the guy but he claimed that he thought she was into rough sex and got away with it. He also beat, choked and sodomised her. If anything sweden needs tougher laws against rapists.
  Besides, since Assange says that he won't go to sweden for a trial if that would be the outcome of the hearing it's kind of a moot point.
20. Re:or stop hiding... by sugar+and+acid · 2014-02-12 23:17 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Assange's resistance to extradition to Sweden is I think because he believes he is more vulnerable to extradition lock away in a Swedish Jail, not because the extradition process is easier from there to the US than the UK, just that he won't be able to skip bail and the country locked away in a jail. EAW extradition proceedings from the UK to Sweden were in motion, he was out on bail when he skipped off into the Ecudorian embassy. If he had been charged in Sweden for rape, combined with the obvious flight risk someone like Assange represents, bail would have been very very high or not available. Assange's thinking is it would be at that point that the US would start extradition proceedings.
  An interesting point here is it is implicit that Assange will not stand and fight any extradition proceedings if he can skip the country. It is a strategy that has left him imprisoned in an embassy in London. Also it has effectively accomplished what the authorities of many countries wanted to achieve, he is trapped, with a progressively smaller political voice.
21. Re:or stop hiding... by F.Ultra · 2014-02-12 23:18 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  Look at how long it took the UK courts to decide that he really should be extradited to Sweden. That too me shows that the UK system kind of works. When he gets over here to Sweden the question of extradition to the US would not be a court matter but a matter for the Foreign Minister and thus could happen in seconds. At least in the UK he has some protection against that.
22. Re:or stop hiding... by AGMW · 2014-02-12 23:25 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  Not sure the UK would have extradited him to the US, and if they agreed to do so it would have been _years_ of court battles before it happened (see Gary McKinnon, amongst others), and yet Sweden can, and do, just hand people over to the US, so from the US's point of view, they'd likely get their hands on Assange far quicker if he could be convinced to pop back to Sweden - at least that seems to be the argument put forward by Assange. FWIW, and having read around the subject quite a bit, I tend to agree with him - Assange would be a fool to voluntarily go back to Sweden at this time.
  Turns out that, as he's in the Ecuadorian embassy, he's already escaped the UK ...
  Swedish police have visited other countries to 'interview' suspects in the past - including murderers - and presumably will do so in the future, so it does seem a little odd that they're so reluctant to pop over to the UK to interview a suspected 'rapist' who has offered to assist countless times.
  The whole issuing of the European Arrest Warrant in the first place is decidedly odd too ... and brings into question the general use of such warrants.
  
  --
  Eclectic beats from Leeds, UK
  handmadehands.co.uk
23. Re:or stop hiding... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-02-12 23:28 · Score: 0
  
  Rules of Evidence.
  Discovery - Each side would have to honestly disclose the each sides facts - and if Julian's side asked the right questions or uncovers illegality - bias or worse - other sides case is sunk.
  In the UK, Evidence would have to be disclosed (and challenged). The extradition would be exactly for what was heard and no more. If Sweden passed him along - the UK would have to tear up its treaties, and independent minded Judges may not do as expected. It seems there is a lot of inadmissible evidence, hearsay, and non-UK offenses.
  Normally not a problem - with a strong UK legal team - a fair trial was possible - until large slabs of evidence became shrouded by secrecy. Being railroaded (because they hate your guts) - is not justice.
24. Re:or stop hiding... by Viol8 · 2014-02-12 23:32 · Score: 1
  
  "Not sure the UK would have extradited him to the US, and if they agreed to do so it would have been _years_ of court battles before it happened "
  If he'd really thought that he wouldn't have run off to hide in an embassy - he'd have waited for any indictment then played it out in court THEN gone to an embassy if things looked bad. The fact that he found a bolt hole almost immediately doesn't exactly convince me of his innocence OR that he has much moral fibre. As with a lot of political noise makers like him , its a case of do as I say, not as I do. He might play the raised fist freedom fighter doing his bit for the oppressed of the world, but in reality he's just another wannabe politician in a bad suit. Put in him in a position of power and he'll bad as venal, grasping and useless as the rest of them.
25. Re:or stop hiding... by wonkey_monkey · 2014-02-12 23:33 · Score: 1
  
  Isn't he on Ecuadorian soil, that happens to be located in the UK?
  Yes
  Actually no. Not that this adds anything to the discussion since the practical situation is effectively the same, and it's a useful colloquial phrase, but an embassy in the UK is still technically "UK soil."
  So Assange is in no way "in Ecuador," but the Vienna Convention means the UK has no right of access to him while he's inside the embassy.
  I had heard that the only bit of true foreign soil within England is the JFK memorial at Runnymede, but it's also said to have been "gifted back" to the UK, so I don't really know what it counts as.
  
  --
  systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
26. Re:or stop hiding... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-02-12 23:35 · Score: 0
  
  Why is a European Arrest Warrant odd? He *allegedly* committed a crime in one European country and has gone to hide in another - that is precisely what they are used for?
27. Re:or stop hiding... by Goaway · 2014-02-12 23:36 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  So you're saying his request to be treated like everybody else is actually a request to be treated different from everybody else?
28. Re:or stop hiding... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-02-12 23:42 · Score: 0
  
  What you are describing fits with S&M as well as rape. I have no problem understanding that the guy could be innocent.
29. Re:or stop hiding... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-02-12 23:42 · Score: 0
  
  Interesting thing about the law. I have yet to hear about a nation where it is applied equally in all cases.
  Changing the rape laws should be the second thing done.
  The first thing to do would be to apply the laws that are in place in the way they are written. First then it will become apparent what the problem with the current laws is.
30. Re:or stop hiding... by pla · 2014-02-12 23:43 · Score: 0
  
  What utter bullshit, and the usual pro-Assange smears when this shit comes up.
  
  You can make a (weak) case for him actually having "raped" Sofia Wilen as a technicality. The whole Arden situation, however, only makes this into a disturbingly laughable illustration of the reactionary misandry coded into Swedish law, with even Arden herself not accusing him of anything more than being a manipulative asshole - Yet prosecutors took the whole ball of wax and ran with it. If you don't to hear people complaining about "rape after the fact", Ny should limit her inquiry to just the one "real" charge.
  
  But wait, this situation has no charges yet! We've had this whole circus going on just because Ny won't even talk to Assange remotely. At this point, the "threat" of him fleeing seems like a moot point; she needs to do her damned job, and either move the case forward or drop it.
  
  Regardless of the facts of the situation, however, you can't seriously believe for even half a second that Assange has any chance whatsoever of getting a fair trial in Sweden.
  
  As for whether or not Assange believes himself when he claims he fears extradition to the US - He only faced two years in a cushy Swedish prison. He has now lived trapped in the Ecuadorian embassy for four.
31. Re:or stop hiding... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-02-12 23:44 · Score: 0
  
  Thought experiment: You go to sleep in bed with Julian Assange, you are terrified of catching HIV and tell him you'll only have sex with him if he uses a condom. You then wake up to find him fucking you without a condom on. You think that would be a pleasant experience?
32. Re:or stop hiding... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-02-12 23:45 · Score: 0
  
  There is obviously more to the story, you don't get acquitted of rape by saying graded "I thought she liked it rough"
  if Sweden had tougher laws against rape, all sex would graded from soft rape to hard rape and considered illegal
33. Re:or stop hiding... by cycler · 2014-02-12 23:46 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  No
  It isn't.
  And why should Sweden be more likely to hand his as over to the US when the UK has much tighter bonds across the pond??
  I call bullshit. /C
34. Re:or stop hiding... by flagboy · 2014-02-12 23:47 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  It would be easier for the US to get him extradited from the UK than from Sweden. Our extradition treaty with the US has far fewer safeguards than does Sweden's. And Sweden wouldn't be able extradite him to the US anyway without him going back to the UK first. I don't see why he can't go to Sweden to face questioning. He seems to have a case to answer, as well he would if the allegations against him were made in the UK (not that this matters legally for a European Arrest Warrant to be valid, but it makes a difference morally).
35. Re: or stop hiding... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-02-12 23:51 · Score: 0
  
  No really, it doesn't. You don't do that kind of stuff without pre negotiation. Rape is rape, and most BDSM practitioners are acutely aware of that.
36. Re:or stop hiding... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-02-12 23:57 · Score: 0
  
  The situation you described is outrageous. However, adding a new law or modifying a old law every time a crime happens is not the solution. This is how we get clusterfuck set of ever changing laws that no one understand, not even the lawyers. What's needed is proper enforcement of the existing laws.
37. Re:or stop hiding... by dbIII · 2014-02-12 23:58 · Score: 1
  
  If you think Ny has any control over the situation you are very naive.
  I think Assange's tactic is to outwait the current US administration and hope the next one doesn't give a shit about leaks that embarrassed Hillary (eg. the "get something on the diplomats so we can blackmail them" cable).
38. Re:or stop hiding... by djmurdoch · 2014-02-12 23:58 · Score: 2
  
  If he'd really thought that he wouldn't have run off to hide in an embassy - he'd have waited for any indictment then played it out in court THEN gone to an embassy if things looked bad.
  You do know that the British courts have already decided to extradite him to Sweden, don't you? He didn't run off to the embassy until his appeal of the extradition failed.
39. Re:or stop hiding... by TapeCutter · 2014-02-13 00:00 · Score: 1
  
  Character assassination is very much a useless response. I would expect it from a politician, but think someone with "moral fibre" would tend to stand up for the rights of people they don't like, not help build the fire for an old fashioned witch burning. The arrogance of believing you know what JA thinks also does not put your post in a good light from a "moral fibre" perspective, it is more likely to be seen as a projection of your own thought processes than an accurate account of JA's thought processes.
  
  --
  And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
40. Re:or stop hiding... by jez9999 · 2014-02-13 00:01 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Well he's not requesting to be treated like everybody else; he's requesting to be interrogated on Ecuadorian soil, which seems reasonable in this case. Why would a Swedish justice system prioritize a technicality over actually trying to move a rape case forward if they really gave a damn about the supposed rape victims?
  
  --
  == Jez ==
  Do you miss Firefox? Try Pale Moon.
41. Re:or stop hiding... by TheRaven64 · 2014-02-13 00:03 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  No, he's in the Ecuadorian embassy, which is on British soil. Britain does not regard foreign embassies as foreign soil (neither do most countries). The Geneva Convention prohibits forced entry into embassies and grants diplomatic immunity to anyone within them. This means that people in an embassy are still covered by the laws of the host country, but the only redress that the host nation has is to deport them as soon as they leave the embassy.
  
  --
  I am TheRaven on Soylent News
42. Re:or stop hiding... by TheRaven64 · 2014-02-13 00:05 · Score: 1
  
  The Geneva Convention
  For some reason, probably related to lack of coffee, I typed Geneva when I meant Vienna.
  
  --
  I am TheRaven on Soylent News
43. Re:or stop hiding... by Goaway · 2014-02-13 00:05 · Score: 1
  
  Prosecutor Marianne Ny must ... start treating him as everybody else who is under suspicion.
  
  It's in the summary, you know.
44. Re: or stop hiding... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-02-13 00:06 · Score: 0
  
  Where does that "thought experiment" end? Anyone that lies to have sex is now guilty of rape.
  Oh sure I'll leave my wife and marry you...
45. Re:or stop hiding... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-02-13 00:09 · Score: 0
  
  Are there any examples that weren't due to belief that the individual was a member of either al Qaida or an affiliate? Assange doesn't seem to be at much risk there. It seems much more likely that Assange is worried about having to spend some time in an even smaller and more restrictive box than the one he is in now.
46. Re:or stop hiding... by Viol8 · 2014-02-13 00:11 · Score: 0
  
  Straw man.
  I'm not putting myself up as some sort of saviour - who then bails out when the going gets tough.
  As for character assassination - judging people by their actions is entirely legitimate and nothing that man has done has convinced me that the way I see him is wrong. He might pull the wool over the eyes of gullible teens and twenty somethings , but when you've been on this planet long enough you've seen plenty of Assange types.
47. Re:or stop hiding... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-02-13 00:11 · Score: 1
  
  You don't need a treaty to extradite somebody.
  Here in the Netherlands, people are eagerly extradited to the US all the time, even though our government is under no obligation to do so. It's often over minor stuff, and sometimes the alleged crimes were not even committed on US soil. There's an agreement about sending such people back to serve time in a dutch jail, but I know of one person (Raymond K.) who was sent to a maximum security prison in the US. He was convicted for xtc smuggling on the testimony of an anonymous witness who had made a plea bargain with an american prosecutor(very dubious in Dutch legal context). The DEA is active in the Netherlands btw, and runs sting operations (=entrapment under dutch law).
  Then there's the case of Sabir K., who claims to have been tortured by US agents:
  http://wtvbam.com/news/articles/2012/apr/17/dutch-court-backs-extradition-of-bomb-suspect-to-us/
  A few days ago, vietnamese student Lee Vu lost his appeal, and it seems the Netherlands will extradite him to the US asap over charges of computer fraud. He claims he is a victim of identity theft.
  I don't know about the situation in Sweden, but it may be the same over there. If it isn't, Assange could still simply be abducted, which has happened at least 100 times in recent times in Europe alone:
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extraordinary_rendition#Extraordinary_renditions_and_black_sites_in_Europe
  If I were him, I wouldn't set a foot on European soil ever again. Same goes for Snowden.
48. Re: or stop hiding... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-02-13 00:12 · Score: 0
  
  Do you honestly think the US wouldn't plan with the Swedish government to extrdiate him? This is just a means to an end. The Ecuadorian government can see through this, why can't you?
49. Re: or stop hiding... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-02-13 00:13 · Score: 0
  
  and the guy most have had water proof evidence that rough sex was negotiated and agreed to, you don't beat a rape charge by saying "I thought she liked it rough"
50. Re: or stop hiding... by Goaway · 2014-02-13 00:15 · Score: 1
  
  Perhaps you could try responding to things I actually said, if you're going to the effort to click "Reply" on my post.
  And perhaps you could explain why the Swedish government would while the British wouldn't, since he was quite happy to stay with them for a long time.
51. Re:or stop hiding... by cold+fjord · 2014-02-13 00:15 · Score: 1
  
  My understanding was that there was no charge (or accusation) filed in Sweden.
  Under the Swedish legal system he has to be interviewed by the prosecutors before he can be charged. There are other nations in the EU that have similar legal systems.
  
  --
  much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
52. Re:or stop hiding... by kbg · 2014-02-13 00:20 · Score: 1
  
  Because the Pirate Bay trial showed that the Swedish courts are easily controlled by the US entertainment industry, so just imagine how much more the US justice system can control the Swedish courts.
53. Re:or stop hiding... by pantaril · 2014-02-13 00:22 · Score: 0
  
  This is indeed a special case.
  No
  It isn't.
  Yes, it is. Or do you know about any other case where interpol issued international 'red notice' over such trivial/weak accusations?
54. Re:or stop hiding... by kbg · 2014-02-13 00:26 · Score: 1
  
  Really? You don't think that the US can make up some espionage or terrorist charges so that Assange can be extradited to the US from Sweden? Don't be so gullible man.
55. Re:or stop hiding... by N1AK · 2014-02-13 00:29 · Score: 1
  
  He might pull the wool over the eyes of gullible teens and twenty somethings ,
  Where as the people making a case against him appear to have pulled the wool over the eyes of another extremely gullible demographic: you. If comparing people who don't share your position to naive teens in a painfully obvious attempt to play the man instead of the ball is the best you've got then debating on the internet is probably about the right level for you.
56. Re:or stop hiding... by pantaril · 2014-02-13 00:30 · Score: 1, Troll
  
  It's the fatal flaw in dear old Julian's argument: He's worried about the Americans getting hold of him, so he'd rather stay in the UK where extradition to the US is easy, rather than go to Sweden where extradition to the US is much harder. Or maybe there's another reason....
  In the pirate bay case history has shown us that sweden and it's authorities easily succumb to the pressure from U.S. I think that Assange's fear of return to the sweeden is very well justified.
57. Re: or stop hiding... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-02-13 00:31 · Score: 0
  
  Explain why they wouldn't.
  He's protected while in the embassy.
  Do you honestly believe he wouldn't end up in the US one way or another if he stepped outside? At this point it doesn't really matter which country hands him over.
58. Re:or stop hiding... by serviscope_minor · 2014-02-13 00:31 · Score: 1
  
  As for character assassination - judging people by their actions is entirely legitimate and nothing that man has done has convinced me that the way I see him is wrong.
  Except your not. You're inventing actions then judging him for them.
  He went to the embassy because the UK had already agreed to extradite him to Sweden.
  That's a fact, you can look it up.
  He doesn't want to go to Sweden because they have a history of handing people to the US to be tortured without even a trial.
  That's also a fact, you can look it up.
  It has nothing to do with him being extradited to the US from the UK. That's simply something you made up in order to smear his character.
  
  --
  SJW n. One who posts facts.
59. Re:or stop hiding... by BlackPignouf · 2014-02-13 00:32 · Score: 1
  
  [citation needed]
60. Re: or stop hiding... by Goaway · 2014-02-13 00:39 · Score: 1
  
  You seem to have conveniently forgetting him happily saying in the UK for quite some time before running to the embassy, without apparently a single fear he would be extradited anywhere.
  Or, of course, that he went to Sweden of his own free will in the first place. No fear he'd be extradited then.
61. Re:or stop hiding... by Goaway · 2014-02-13 00:40 · Score: 1
  
  Why do you think they can do that for Sweden, but couldn't do it for the UK during the long time he was staying there?
62. Re:or stop hiding... by BlackPignouf · 2014-02-13 00:43 · Score: 1
  
  Nevermind : http://www.thelocal.se/2014011...
63. Re:or stop hiding... by thetagger · 2014-02-13 00:44 · Score: 0
  
  Where your argument falls apart is here: if he had taken a flight and gone to Sweden and found guilty he would probably be out of jail already. Instead he is still effectively "in jail" in an embassy, with no end in sight to that situation, and he is still not free from the possibility of being arrested in the future.
  The fact that the British government has deployed rather high tech surveillance equipment against him kind of shows that there is something more going on than just an attempt to grab some random dude who did something wrong.
64. Re:or stop hiding... by Raenex · 2014-02-13 00:46 · Score: 1
  
  I think Assange's tactic is to outwait the current US administration and hope the next one doesn't give a shit about leaks that embarrassed Hillary (eg. the "get something on the diplomats so we can blackmail them" cable).
  If you think the US government only cares about this because of Hillary and the current administration, you are very naive. It doesn't matter who the next administration is, they don't want people leaking state secrets.
65. Re: or stop hiding... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-02-13 00:52 · Score: 0
  
  That was before his appeal against extradition was denied, or do you have selective amnesia?
  You completely skipped my question though, do you honestly believe that if he left the embassy today he wouldn't end up in US custody?
  There's a reason the term is Kangaroo Court and not Kangaroo Sentencing. While the outcome is predetermined, you still need to put on the theatrics for the sake of the small folk.
66. Re:or stop hiding... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-02-13 00:56 · Score: 0
  
  It has nothing to do with extradition. He believes the Americans will snatch him, aka "extraordinary rendition". They have grabbed people in Europe many times before, and the fact that the Swedish prosecutor is so desperate to get him back instead of doing an overseas interview as per normal procedure lends credibility to that scenario.
  Considering that people kidnapped by the US tend to be taken to a third country where they can be tortured for months, followed by an extended stay at Guantanamo and finally a show trial, and that the likely end game would be execution or life in prison you can see why he is keen to avoid that happening.
67. Re:or stop hiding... by dbIII · 2014-02-13 00:58 · Score: 1
  
  I used the word "hope" and was writing about someone else's hope so your lack of reading comprehension skills has somewhat derailed your "clever" comeback of trying to shoot the messenger.
68. Re:or stop hiding... by James_Duncan8181 · 2014-02-13 01:06 · Score: 1
  
  If he'd really thought that he wouldn't have run off to hide in an embassy - he'd have waited for any indictment then played it out in court THEN gone to an embassy if things looked bad.
  This is almost exactly what happened, but thanks for your uninformed reckon.
  
  --
  "To any truly impartial person, it would be obvious that I am right."
69. Re:or stop hiding... by Raenex · 2014-02-13 01:09 · Score: 1
  
  So you're trying to impose a naive view of "hope" onto Assange? No, that sounds stupid. If you accuse somebody else of being naive, don't get upset when it gets thrown back in your face when you act naive. It's nothing about "shooting the messenger".
70. Re:or stop hiding... by Raul654 · 2014-02-13 01:10 · Score: 2
  
  "It would be easier for the US to get him extradited from the UK than from Sweden." -- except he isn't in the UK. He's in Ecuador. And when Whitehall floated the idea that they could violate the integrity of the Ecuadorian embassy to arrested him, it blew up in their faces. Doing so would effectively open up their embassies to similar retaliation by every other country in the world.
  
  --
  
  To make laws that man cannot, and will not obey, serves to bring all law into contempt.
  --E.C. Stanton
71. Re:or stop hiding... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-02-13 01:10 · Score: 0
  
  That could be true. There is no bail in Sweden.
72. Re:or stop hiding... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-02-13 01:10 · Score: 0
  
  "State" of course being the 'Royal We' of modern english criminals.
73. Re:or stop hiding... by DeathToBill · 2014-02-13 01:11 · Score: 1
  
  As for whether or not Assange believes himself when he claims he fears extradition to the US - He only faced two years in a cushy Swedish prison. He has now lived trapped in the Ecuadorian embassy for four.
  Try 18 months, not four years.
  
  --
  Slashdot - News for Nerds, Stuff that Matters, in ISO-8859-1 Has just realised that beta makes this signature redundant
74. Re:or stop hiding... by DeathToBill · 2014-02-13 01:12 · Score: 1
  
  If you think Ny has any control over the situation you are very naive.
  I think Assange's tactic is to outwait the current US administration and hope the next one doesn't give a shit about leaks that embarrassed Hillary (eg. the "get something on the diplomats so we can blackmail them" cable).
  Yes, a sane, balanced view of the situation. Almost as sane and balanced as Julian's.
  
  --
  Slashdot - News for Nerds, Stuff that Matters, in ISO-8859-1 Has just realised that beta makes this signature redundant
75. Re:or stop hiding... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-02-13 01:14 · Score: 0
  
  > I don't see why he can't go to Sweden to face questioning.
  he's criminal in sweden, and there is different rules applying for criminals and everyone else.
76. Re:or stop hiding... by pla · 2014-02-13 01:22 · Score: 1
  
  Ah, math fail on my part. I just did 2014 - 2010. Good catch.
  
  Wow... So that BS went on for almost two years before Assange holed up in London? Funny how fast the wheels of justice turn, sometimes.
77. Re:or stop hiding... by CrimsonAvenger · 2014-02-13 01:28 · Score: 1
  
  He doesn't want to go to Sweden because they have a history of handing people to the US to be tortured without even a trial.
  Citation?
  I've seen that asserted a lot, never seen any evidence offered.
  
  --
  
  "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
78. Re:or stop hiding... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-02-13 01:30 · Score: 0
  
  They're always a member of a terrorist organization.
  At least officially (and retroactively if need be), once they're in US hands. And if they weren't, assuming there's anything left beyond organ failure, they will be once you're done playing Jack Bauer with their testicles so you really can't let them go.
79. Re:or stop hiding... by CrimsonAvenger · 2014-02-13 01:37 · Score: 2
  
  "It would be easier for the US to get him extradited from the UK than from Sweden." -- except he isn't in the UK.
  Of course, he spent YEARS in the UK while the Swedes' extradition request worked its way through the courts. If the USA wanted him, why didn't the USA try to extradite him from the UK during that time?
  Face it, the evidence is that the USA has no real interest in Assange.
  Obama has been willing to assassinate US citizens (twice, at least, and they're debating how to go about doing it again, I see in the news), so why wouldn't he just take out Assange the old-fashioned way if we cared about Assange at all?
  
  --
  
  "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
80. Re:or stop hiding... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-02-13 01:39 · Score: 0
  
  and you probably never will...
81. Re:or stop hiding... by Goose+In+Orbit · 2014-02-13 01:42 · Score: 1
  
  Like, you know, "everybody else" would have to do?
  Unless they're Amanda Knox?
82. Re:or stop hiding... by Vintermann · 2014-02-13 01:48 · Score: 2
  
  I'm sure you know UK, but you don't know Sweden. The ruling party has close ties to the US. They've used Karl Rove as a consultant, and the foreign minister has admitted to passing on highly confidential information to the US embassy in the 70s - inter-party negotiation positions, stuff he wasn't even allowed to share with his own party.
  They would pay a political price for just turning over Assange. But they would do it. They would need only the flimsiest of excuses. To be seen as US' puppets in their own country's eyes? No big deal to them, rubbing elbows with the US is worth it.
  
  --
  xkcd is not in the sudoers file. This incident will be reported.
83. Re:or stop hiding... by blade8086 · 2014-02-13 01:50 · Score: 1
  
  It doesn't matter - because he's not staying in the UK - he's staying in the *equadorian embassy* which means hes actually on the soverign state soil of *equador* who has aggreed to offer him protection by letting him stay *in equador*.
84. Re:or stop hiding... by dreamchaser · 2014-02-13 01:50 · Score: 1
  
  There has been no extradition request for Knox yet, and even if one is issued there's every chance the US would not extradite because of double jeopardy. You can't be tried twice for the same crime under US law, and that is reflected in our extradition treaties.
85. Re:or stop hiding... by Vintermann · 2014-02-13 01:51 · Score: 2
  
  UK is more powerful , and more nationalistic. The Conservatives may be just as deferential to the US in private as Sweden's ruling party, but they would pay a big price with their constituents if they acted like lapdogs in public.
  
  --
  xkcd is not in the sudoers file. This incident will be reported.
86. Re:or stop hiding... by Martin+Blank · 2014-02-13 01:56 · Score: 2
  
  He's in the UK, in the Ecuadoran embassy. Embassies are not extraterritorial soil, but are protected under the Vienna Convention. Under the Convention, the UK can't enter without approval from Ecuador, which makes it similar in practical effect, but it's not the same as being on Ecuadorian soil.
  
  --
  You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
87. Re:or stop hiding... by Vintermann · 2014-02-13 01:56 · Score: 1
  
  Try dangling this in front of your nose. After a day or two, you might see it.
  http://www.hrw.org/news/2006/1...
  
  --
  xkcd is not in the sudoers file. This incident will be reported.
88. Re:or stop hiding... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-02-13 01:58 · Score: 1
  
  I call Bullshit on youir Bullshit, but thanks for playing
  The UK - US do not have a bilateral agreement to hand over an individual without a court case, but Sweden - US do have that type of agreement
  The tighter bonds are there between the UK - US governments but the laws of the UK do not allow what the US - Sweden agreement allows them.
  Thanks for playing ..... nope wait a minute, thanks for losing at simple logic.
89. Re:or stop hiding... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-02-13 02:00 · Score: 0
  
  And there would be more media blowback from a direct extradition from the UK than a extradition to sweden then him being handed over to the US after X amount of time.
90. Re:or stop hiding... by krlynch · 2014-02-13 02:00 · Score: 1
  
  It does, because he isn't ... as is pointed out every time this pointless story comes back to /.
  "Contrary to popular belief, diplomatic missions do not enjoy full extraterritorial status and are not sovereign territory of the represented state."
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D...
91. Re:or stop hiding... by silas_moeckel · 2014-02-13 02:02 · Score: 1
  
  And that requires being inside there borders? At this point he has effectively sought and been granted political asylum by Ecuador, that intentionally trumps any other nations claim on him or there would be no point to political asylum.
  
  --
  No sir I dont like it.
92. Re:or stop hiding... by gnasher719 · 2014-02-13 02:02 · Score: 1
  
  Look at how long it took the UK courts to decide that he really should be extradited to Sweden. That too me shows that the UK system kind of works. When he gets over here to Sweden the question of extradition to the US would not be a court matter but a matter for the Foreign Minister and thus could happen in seconds. At least in the UK he has some protection against that.
  As far as I know you have some amount of protection when extradited. You can only be taken to court for the crime in the extradition request and if guilty, put to jail for that crime, not for anything else. And you have the right to be returned to where you came from afterwards. So worst case: Be sent to Sweden, go to jail, leave jail, demand to be brought back to the UK, go to court there for skipping bail.
93. Re:or stop hiding... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-02-13 02:06 · Score: 0
  
  As far as I understand it, an extradition from the UK would require a judicial decision/oversight. Sweden, apart from the same, has e version where he could be handed over to the US for 'helping' them investigate $other_crime, without a charge against him per se, and that can be decided by some bureaucrat - "just following the rules" - without any annoying judiciary involvement, by a simple request from the US... And The UK has run in through the courts who said he could (should) be handed over (thus the 24/7 police guard outside the embassy).
94. Re:or stop hiding... by jrumney · 2014-02-13 02:06 · Score: 1
  
  If convicted, he would likely serve some time in Sweden, then be extradited to his native Australia on release. Australia does have a history of being a US puppet, so perhaps he is more worried about being extradited from Australia than anywhere.
95. Re:or stop hiding... by jrumney · 2014-02-13 02:08 · Score: 1
  
  Sorry, extradited was not the right word, he would be deported on release from prison.
96. Re:or stop hiding... by Zorpheus · 2014-02-13 02:09 · Score: 1
  
  Under the circumstances, en interrogation in England is the best solution for every parties. If, following the interrogation, formal charges are layed and is is accused of rape, his situation will change anyway and probably won't have the choice to face the charges there, regardless where he is.
  I think for some parties it is best when he stays locked into that embassy. So they are not gonna change anything and Assange must stay there until he is willing to risk to go to Sweden.
97. Re:or stop hiding... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-02-13 02:14 · Score: 0
  
  > I don't see why he can't go to Sweden to face questioning.
  he's criminal in sweden, and there is different rules applying for criminals and everyone else.
  Criminal? No, there aren't even any formal charges, let alone a guilty verdict (innocent unil... and all that.), He's just wanted for questioning in a, in the eyes of many, many, very shady/shaky case of 'sexuellt utnyttjande' (not sure what the english term would be.
98. Re:or stop hiding... by dbIII · 2014-02-13 02:16 · Score: 1
  
  It's obviously nothing other than a failed attempt to insult me because you recognised my handle from an earlier discussion. I'm sure you've got far more interesting things to do than twisting the words of others out of shape. You are not fooling anyone. The audience you are playing to does not exist by this point and we both know you are just ineptly playing a very childish game here.
99. Re:or stop hiding... by sheph · 2014-02-13 02:21 · Score: 0
  
  The two are really apples and oranges though. Anti-piracy language has been written into trade agreements for some time now. Violation of which could adversely affect trade with that country. They really don't have a lot of motivation to extradite him other than now he seems to be making problems for them. Sweeden is a sovereign nation they don't just do the bidding of the US unless it benefits them in some way.
  
  --
  I don't believe in karma, I just call it like I see it.
100. Re:or stop hiding... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-02-13 02:21 · Score: 0
  
  As for whether or not Assange believes himself when he claims he fears extradition to the US - He only faced two years in a cushy Swedish prison. He has now lived trapped in the Ecuadorian embassy for four.
  Try 18 months, not four years.
  He'd still be out by now, as prisoners here normally only serve 2/3 of the sentence.
101. Re:or stop hiding... by flagboy · 2014-02-13 02:31 · Score: 1
  
  That didn't help Christopher Tappin (exactly the sort of person your typical Home Counties Tory might be expected to support)
102. Re:or stop hiding... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-02-13 02:35 · Score: 0
  
  Wikipedia isn't the best of resources to cite, but I can't be arsed to look for more in english, Google 'egyptier cia sverige' and you'll have plenty of links to the story in Swedish media. Wiki link
103. Re:or stop hiding... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-02-13 02:36 · Score: 1
  
  This is indeed a special case.
  No
  It isn't.
  Yes, it is. Or do you know about any other case where interpol issued international 'red notice' over such trivial/weak accusations?
  Interpol red notices are just requests for extradition. They get issued whenever one Interpol member state requests arrest and extradition of someone who's currently in another state, regardless of the severity of the crime. There were 8126 in 2012. There was absolutely nothing unusual about Interpol issuing a red notice for Mr. Assange.
104. Re:or stop hiding... by Raul654 · 2014-02-13 02:37 · Score: 1
  
  "Face it, the evidence is that the USA has no real interest in Assange." - that's bullshit. Even while denying that he's under indictment, the official who said it was only half-hearted in his denial: "Nothing has occurred so far," ( -- http://www.washingtonpost.com/... )
  "So far" being the operative word. And that sounds like a lot more interest than none at all.
  
  --
  
  To make laws that man cannot, and will not obey, serves to bring all law into contempt.
  --E.C. Stanton
105. Re:or stop hiding... by Ash+Vince · 2014-02-13 02:43 · Score: 1
  
  If convicted, he would likely serve some time in Sweden, then be extradited to his native Australia on release. Australia does have a history of being a US puppet, so perhaps he is more worried about being extradited from Australia than anywhere.
  Exactly. I have a feeling that the problem here is that Assange knows he is actually guilty as hell in regard to being a shit in exactly the way these women allege. He has been warned by his lawyer that if he returns to Sweden and pleads guilty he will be given a trivial punishment, but then also deported as an undesirable back to Oz. Even if the US did not want him when he got there chances us in the UK would not allow him back into the country, we can do that for any non European we want if they are "not conducive of the public good" in the opinion of the home secretory.
  I do not doubt he has been set up, but think that for anyone to know to set him up like this there must of been an awareness that he regularly behaved in a pretty awful way towards members of the opposite sex and that this was a prime way of punishing him. They exploited this but he could have avoided this by not being such a shit in the first place.
  The US probably don't care whether he ends up in one of their prisons or not, currently he has his very own prison set up in an embassy.
  
  --
  I dont read /. to RTFA, I read /. to offend people in ignorance.
106. Re:or stop hiding... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-02-13 02:43 · Score: 0
  My understanding was that there was no charge (or accusation) filed in Sweden.
  A quick recap:
  The Swedish prosecutors claimed that charges were filed.
  The Assange defence team claimed otherwise, on grounds that a particular word in the relevant document should have been translated as ``accused'' rather than ``charged''.
  The High Court heard the case and concluded that the word was better translated ``charged'' (as it has been in dozens of previous extradition cases).
  The case was appealed to the Supreme Court, who agreed that it should be translated as ``charged''.
  Julian Assange claimed asylum in the Ecuadorian embassy.
  Whether you think he's been charged largely depends on which arguments you find most convincing.
107. Re:or stop hiding... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-02-13 02:51 · Score: 0
  
  Right... because you would go quietly if it was clear that the other side were willing to break the law to make sure the result was the right one.
108. Re:or stop hiding... by Raenex · 2014-02-13 02:52 · Score: 1
  
  It's obviously nothing other than a failed attempt to insult me because you recognised my handle from an earlier discussion.
  Sorry, I've debated many people here and did not recognize you. What I picked up on was you calling somebody naive and then making your own naive statement.
  
  we both know you are just ineptly playing a very childish game here.
  I think you are, in that you can't admit when you are wrong. Not a single thing in your most recent post addresses anything I said, as in how would it make sense to describe a naive hope to Assange? It goes even further than that, because to sum up the releases by Wikileaks as "leaks that embarrassed Hillary" would no doubt piss of Assange.
  So what you've done is make your own naive statement, and then try to salvage it by saying it's something Assange is hoping for. Keep on digging that hole.
109. Re:or stop hiding... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-02-13 02:52 · Score: 0
  
  >>> I don't see why he can't go to Sweden to face questioning.
  >>he's criminal in sweden, and there is different rules applying for criminals and everyone else.
  > there aren't even any formal charges, let alone a guilty verdict
  Guess the rules are different for suspected criminals too. If he goes to sweden, gets questioned, the result of the questioning is such that he is labeled criminal, passed to jail, then evil USA comes and asks him to be transferred to US... I mean, it could happen, even if its unlikely. Guess his US story is so evil that he cannot afford to be labeled criminal.
110. Re:or stop hiding... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-02-13 02:53 · Score: 1
  
  Because the UK is not as corrupt as Sweden. They actually follow the rule of law there, but in Sweden the US could just send some agents to Sweden and he could be flown out of there on the next plane.
  Transparency International, an NGO devoted to fighting corruption, gives Sweden a better score (89/100) than the UK (76/100).
111. Re:or stop hiding... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-02-13 03:01 · Score: 0
  
  even so, it still isn't viewed as being very polite to invade someones embassy and could negatively affect your relations with that country.
112. Re:or stop hiding... by sudon't · 2014-02-13 03:06 · Score: 0
  
  Rape? He's accused of being kind of a dick in bed, (definitely no pun intended), which is somehow illegal in Sweden.
  
  --
  -- sudon't
  Air-ride Equipped
113. Re:or stop hiding... by Luckyo · 2014-02-13 03:09 · Score: 0
  
  Actually he's being accused of sleeping with two women without telling them.
  Pretty much everything else is window dressing. The case has all the feature of moden Swedish feminism, ranging from giving university lectures on "how to use rape accusations to put your ex-boyfriend in jail" to saving used condoms for a week and then bringing that used condom to police as evidence of man not using a condom.
114. Re:or stop hiding... by Luckyo · 2014-02-13 03:11 · Score: 1
  
  Look up the law in Spain, which is bound by the same arguments in Sweden.
  Sweden was basically singled out, and forcibly coerced by US.
115. Re:or stop hiding... by Type44Q · 2014-02-13 03:11 · Score: 1
  
  I had heard that the only bit of true foreign soil within England is the JFK memorial at Runnymede
  Actually, the Rothschilds have their own Vatican; I believe it's known as the City of London.
116. Re:or stop hiding... by Viol8 · 2014-02-13 03:11 · Score: 1
  
  LOL! Oh please, just go back to your student debating society where people might take your argument seriously :o)
117. Re:or stop hiding... by Luckyo · 2014-02-13 03:13 · Score: 1
  
  I suggest looking up the allegations against him before going on with your claims in some detail. Even in worst case scenario where judge also happens to be extremist feminist and actually agrees with insanity that is the case, he's extremely unlikely to get jail simply due to legal constraints on punishments.
118. Re:or stop hiding... by Luckyo · 2014-02-13 03:15 · Score: 1
  
  Sweden has a long history dating all the way back to WW2 on selling out people to foreign powers in exchange for better relations, technology licenses and so on.
  That's a reason, for example, why Sweden has the biggest military industrial complex in relation to population in the world.
119. Re:or stop hiding... by Viol8 · 2014-02-13 03:18 · Score: 1
  
  "Sweden because they have a history of handing people to the US to be tortured without even a trial."
  Oh riiiight. Can to point us to a list of people extradited by sweden who are now being "tortured" in the US?
  Whats that? You can't because you're talking out your arse? I'm shocked.
  I like the tinfoil hat you've got going there btw.
120. Re:or stop hiding... by Luckyo · 2014-02-13 03:19 · Score: 1
  
  And considering the merits of the case, he'd be given a suspended sentence even if they did decide to convict him, which in light of the facts of the case is highly improbable.
  Of course, with enemies like he has, facts will be engineered very quickly.
121. Re:or stop hiding... by Immerman · 2014-02-13 03:21 · Score: 1
  
  I believe the logic is based on conditional consent: She says "Yes, if you use a condom", he doesn't use a condom, therefore she never said yes, which makes it rape.
  I agree it seems a little drastic putting it on the same level as a back-alley assault (though perhaps Sweden has multiple degrees of rape as we do for murder), but it's a lot more severe of an act than just "being a dick". Embarrassing somebody in public is dickish, possibly impregnating a woman so that she has to chose between having a unwanted child or an abortion, is *way* past that.
  
  --
  --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
122. Re: or stop hiding... by Luckyo · 2014-02-13 03:24 · Score: 1
  
  Let me toss a scenario for you:
  Man and woman meet over drinks. They get drunk, and woman shares a fairly standard thing - she has a rape fantasy and she's drunk enough to suggest it. Guy agrees. They do the whole thing.
  It turns out to be a whole lot worse than what paperback novels aimed at women portrait the act as. Woman regrets the act and goes to the police. Bam, rape charges.
  Now if you take in account just how many paperback novels featuring soft rape fantasy there are aimed at women and just how well they sell, as well as drinking culture among women in Sweden and known lack of inhibitions that it produces, you're suddenly faced with a choice of sending an innocent man to prison just because he didn't compare with men from paperback novels.
  And if you do that, you may as well start sending women to jail because they don't match to porn stars in bed either.
123. Re:or stop hiding... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-02-13 03:29 · Score: 0
  
  i am pretty sure the US views wikileaks as a terrorist organization.
124. Re:or stop hiding... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-02-13 03:35 · Score: 0
  
  but he isn't a UK citizen so after that they could immediately deport him. or possibly extradite him to the US.
125. Re:or stop hiding... by kbg · 2014-02-13 03:43 · Score: 1
  
  Well tell that to the two Egyptian asylum-seekers that where grabbed on the street and deported illegally out of the country by the CIA with the full knowledge and approval by the corrupt Swedish government.
126. Re:or stop hiding... by kbg · 2014-02-13 03:44 · Score: 1
  
  Here are the details of that illegal extradition.
127. Re:or stop hiding... by Artifakt · 2014-02-13 03:53 · Score: 1
  
  It's far from a sane, balanced view, simply because it's not a choice between "the current US administration" and a next one that "doesn't give a shit about leaks that embarrassed Hillary" - it would be a choice to wait for various future states, not one future state and one current.
  If Assange really is just waiting out the current administration, he will be up against either a Republican administration that really likes the NRO, NSA, CIA and all the rest having near unlimited powers, and will put anybody those organizations don't like on their "High Priority - No Good Bum" list, or a Democratic administration where Hillary herself is likely to be Commander in Chief. There's very, very little chance the US will actually elect either a Republican that actually wants to reign in Homeland Security and would promote compromise on the Assange case to help do it, or a Democrat that isn't Hillary herself. Both states that migh prevail if Assange waits are likely to be worse than the state right now, from his point of view.
  Saying Assange is playing a waiting game is effectively saying he is desperate, and gambiling on very low odds outcomes.
  
  --
  Who is John Cabal?
128. Re:or stop hiding... by Megol · 2014-02-13 03:59 · Score: 1
  
  Actually he's being accused of sleeping with two women without telling them.
  Pretty much everything else is window dressing. The case has all the feature of moden Swedish feminism, ranging from giving university lectures on "how to use rape accusations to put your ex-boyfriend in jail"...
  
  Doing this is probably illegal, do you have any reference to this? Sounds like a myth like the one presented in Turkish media among others: that Swedish women go to Turkey, have sex, accuses partner of rape and then get money from their (Swedish) insurance. Strangely the insurance companies had never heard of anything like that - there isn't even something like a "rape insurance".
  
  ... to saving used condoms for a week and then bringing that used condom to police as evidence of man not using a condom.
  How would a used condom be proof that it wasn't used? You aren't making any sense. Anyway I have trash in a bin for over a week sometimes, do you empty yours daily?
129. Re:or stop hiding... by kbg · 2014-02-13 04:07 · Score: 1
  
  The two Egyptian asylum-seekers that where grabbed on the street in Sweden and deported illegally out of the country by the CIA didn't have much protection.
130. Re:or stop hiding... by Megol · 2014-02-13 04:09 · Score: 1
  
  Maybe you should look up how the Swedish legal system works (the judge isn't alone to pass judgement) and how hard it is to be sentenced without hard evidence.
  But yes the punishment would probably be a fine (which are mostly symbolic).
  What I don't understand is why Assange just doesn't get assurance that he will not be deported to the US if he is as innocent as he claims. Such agreements aren't that uncommon FYI.
131. Re:or stop hiding... by kbg · 2014-02-13 04:15 · Score: 1
  
  Here are two Egyptian asylum-seekers that where extradited illegally from Sweden by the CIA and tortured.
132. Re:or stop hiding... by aralin · 2014-02-13 04:28 · Score: 1
  
  The "crime" US wants him for is treason. His lawyers could argue that it carries a possibility of death penalty and therefore it is impossible for UK to hand him over. Sweden does not have such qualms. But UK can extradite him to Sweden because Sweden has no death penalty and the rape charge is much lesser charge.
  
  --
  If programs would be read like poetry, most programmers would be Vogons.
133. Re:or stop hiding... by Luckyo · 2014-02-13 04:42 · Score: 1
  
  Read the facts of the case. They are freely available. It's not "me" who is "not making any sense" but the woman who came to accuse Assange. Those are HER claims.
  That's why the first prosecutor, who didn't have history of radical feminism threw the case out until someone (likely in intelligence) noticed the case and figured out it could be used against Assange.
  P.S. I have no idea about myths in Turkey. I just happen to live next door and it's common knowledge here in Finland that when you bang swedish girls on the Turku-Stockholm minicruises, you may get accused of rape a few weeks later. It rarely amounts to anything though.
  And I do mean bang. That's what you do on those cruises. That and drink. There's a saying around here that amounts to "what happens on minicruise stays on minicruise). That also helps when one of them has a husband or boyfriend gets all jealous about her banging other men on the cruise and she claims rape. Police in Sweden usually treats those "late claims" with all the seriousness they deserve.
134. Re:or stop hiding... by Luckyo · 2014-02-13 04:44 · Score: 1
  
  Because US would be stupid to provide one. And US isn't stupid.
  P.S. Swedish and Finnish legal systems are very similar - ours was built on theirs and we have a very similar cultural background. The fact is that while the judges have significant amount of weight in our systems as to how the sentencing will go. They are the legal experts after all.
135. Re:or stop hiding... by cycler · 2014-02-13 04:46 · Score: 1
  
  Why not?
  As a swede, I'm offended that he is pissing on our legal system.
  I say invade the house and drag his sorry as back to face the interview.
  IF he would have done that directly he would have been released pending a charge (not likely)
  If it would go to court he would be aquitted. He word against the ladies.
  And if he now was paranoid about "honey-pot ladies" why the f-k didn't keep it in his pants?
  For all the good he has done, this is just stupid.
  /C
136. Re:or stop hiding... by LWATCDR · 2014-02-13 04:58 · Score: 1
  
  Funny but I am pretty sure Sweden is the nation that is after Assange in this case. He really should just go to France, they have a long history of protecting famous rapists.
  
  --
  See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
137. Re:or stop hiding... by F.Ultra · 2014-02-13 05:03 · Score: 1
  
  Protection applies only if you are a Swedish citizen. The judicial systems does not even have to be involved at all if a foreigner such as Assange would be deported to the US.
138. Re:or stop hiding... by Grumbleduke · 2014-02-13 05:11 · Score: 2
  
  The UK - US do not have a bilateral agreement to hand over an individual without a court case...
  Nor does Sweden. The suggestion that Sweden had such an agreement came from a misreading of their extradition treaty; the same term appears in the UK law and is about extraditing people temporarily after the extradition has been approved.
139. Re:or stop hiding... by Grumbleduke · 2014-02-13 05:15 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  It seems that every time Assange comes up I have to paste this, so here goes. From the English High Court judgment, he is accused of 4 offences, as follows:
  
  1. Unlawful coercion
  On 13-14 August 2010, in the home of the injured party [AA] in Stockholm. Assange, by using violence. forced the injured party to endure his restricting her freedom of movement. The violence consisted in a firm hold of the injured party's arms and a forceful spreading of her legs whilst lying on top of her and with his body weight preventing her from moving or shifting.
  2. Sexual molestation
  On 13-14 August 2010, in the home of the injured party [AA] in Stockholm, Assange deliberately molested the injured party by acting in a manner designed to violate her sexual integrity. Assange, who was aware that it was the expressed wish of the injured party and a prerequisite of sexual intercourse that a condom be used, consummated unprotected sexual intercourse with her without her knowledge.
  3. Sexual molestation
  On 18 August 2010 or on any of the days before or after that date, in the home of the injured party [AA] in Stockholm, Assange deliberately molested the injured party by acting in a manner designed to violate her sexual integrity i.e. lying next to her and pressing his naked, erect penis to her body.
  4. Rape
  On 17 August 2010, in the home of the injured party [SW] in Enkoping, Assange deliberately consummated sexual intercourse with her by improperly exploiting that she, due to sleep. was in a helpless state.
  It is an aggravating circumstance that Assange. who was aware that it was the expressed wish of the injured party and a prerequisite of sexual intercourse that a condom be used. still consummated unprotected sexual intercourse with her. The sexual act was designed to violate the injured party's sexual integrity."
  
  So what he is is alleged to have done (whether or not he did so) is definitely rape under both Swedish and English law.
140. Re:or stop hiding... by Grumbleduke · 2014-02-13 05:18 · Score: 1
  
  According to the English High Court, the rape allegation comes from him having sex with someone while she was asleep - the non-use of a condom being an aggravating factor.
  The not-using-a-condom is a separate offence of sexual molestation, with the other woman. He's also accused of a second count of sexual molestation against her (for rubbing himself against her, against her will) and one of unlawful coercion for using force against her.
  And yes, from my understanding of Swedish law, they do have different degrees of "rape", and even if they don't, they will almost certainly have different levels of sentence.
141. Re:or stop hiding... by silas_moeckel · 2014-02-13 05:19 · Score: 1
  
  The point of asylum is to piss on another nation state it's working as intended. Equador has decided that it's more likely a witch hunt to pin something on him and/or that they just like the political angle.
  
  --
  No sir I dont like it.
142. Re:or stop hiding... by Grumbleduke · 2014-02-13 05:20 · Score: 1
  
  For the US to extradite him from Sweden they'd also need permission of the UK (under the EU Surrender/Extradition Framework). Which means the case would first have to go through the Swedish courts, then the English courts, maybe the CJEU and probably the ECtHR.
  In contrast, extraditing him from the UK would require just the English courts and ECtHR - so would be significantly easier.
143. Re:or stop hiding... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-02-13 05:28 · Score: 0
  
  For the sake of pedanticism, there is a small patch in Edinburgh that is technically Canadian Soil. This was done so that several baronets could be made in Nova Scotia (which at the time required gifting by the monarch a handful of soil from their respective barontecy). In order to prevent the monarch having to travel to Canada, the patch of garden was declared to be in Nova Scotia. To my knowledge, this has never been altered. Monarchies often have such idiosyncracies created by a monarch for a purpose, and then neglected.
144. Re:or stop hiding... by Grumbleduke · 2014-02-13 05:28 · Score: 1
  
  The problem is that the guy in that video apparently hasn't read the actual treaty. Nor, it seems, have the people who wrote this page on Justice4Assange which has the video embedded and even quotes the relevant passage of the treaty.
  
  VI. If the extradition request is granted in the case of a person who is being prosecuted or is serving a sentence in the territory of the requested State for a different offense, the requested State may:
  b) temporarily surrender the person sought to the requesting State for the purpose of prosecution. The person so surrendered shall be kept in custody while in the requesting State and shall be returned to the requested State after the conclusion of the proceedings against that person in accordance with conditions to be determined by mutual agreement of the Contracting States. [emphasis added]
  Yes, there is a temporary surrender provision, but it only applies if the extradition has already been approved, i.e. if the Swedish (and English, and European) courts have approved it.
145. Re:or stop hiding... by amRadioHed · 2014-02-13 05:34 · Score: 1
  
  How can he be accused of treason in the US if he is not a US citizen?
  
  --
  We hope your rules and wisdom choke you / Now we are one in everlasting peace
146. Re:or stop hiding... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-02-13 05:55 · Score: 0
  
  Good riddance.
147. Re:or stop hiding... by kbg · 2014-02-13 05:57 · Score: 1
  
  Wouldn't just the prosecutor need to drop the current case and then the UK permission wouldn't be needed and then he could be extradited with out any problems? But in any case the Swedish government has shown before that they don't exactly follow the law.
148. Re:or stop hiding... by sosume · 2014-02-13 06:00 · Score: 1
  
  Maybe he shouldn't have been playing mr. Rapist, then. If the victim were my sister or daughter he would have larger problems than a remote chance on extradition. If you ask me, Assange is full of bullshit, he is soooooo important, the whole world's apparently after him.
149. Re:or stop hiding... by FriendlyLurker · 2014-02-13 06:09 · Score: 1
  
  That is correct, but no guarantee that Assange would not be extradited, as several Swedish and international law professors have pointed out:
  
  "[I]t is incorrect to say that the final decision to extradite Assange from Sweden to the US would be made by the courts... Swedish extradition law clearly states that the Swedish government is the body deciding on any extradition request"
  Here is the long explanation involving quotes from several law professors who know their stuff.
150. Re:or stop hiding... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-02-13 06:16 · Score: 0
  
  Grow up. Ad hominem attacks are truly childish.
151. Re:or stop hiding... by Grumbleduke · 2014-02-13 06:32 · Score: 2
  
  If he is in Sweden, having been surrendered, then the UK's permission will be needed to extradite him further. That's in Article 28(4) of the Framework Decision on the European Arrest Warrant:
  
  ...a person who has been surrendered pursuant to a European arrest warrant shall not be extradited to a third State without the consent of the competent authority of the Member State which surrendered the person. Such consent shall be given in accordance with the Conventions by which that Member State is bound, as well as with its domestic law.
  It doesn't matter if Sweden drops the charges or accusations, they couldn't extradite him to the US without permission from the UK.
  On the Agiza and al-Zery issue, to me that is an argument against extraordinary rendition happening from Sweden; it was well over a decade ago, and caused such a huge scandal nationally and internationally, with changes to rules and laws, that it is unlikely to happen again, in an even higher profile situation, with a new government. Iirc there was likely to be a major investigation with legal action against the relevant Swedish officials, but that wasn't likely to go anywhere as the foreign minster at the time was murdered between the renditions and the scandal breaking.
  Were Sweden to break the law and extra-judicially surrender Assange to the US, there would be a major international scandal, as they would be almost certainly breaking Swedish, EU and ECHR law, to help the US in what is probably already an unpopular situation. I don't think it would end well for the Swedish government - not least because they'd struggle to ever get an extradition or surrender warrant in similar circumstances ever again.
152. Re:or stop hiding... by Grumbleduke · 2014-02-13 06:42 · Score: 2
  
  What those quote are saying is that if the Swedish courts say he can be extradited, the Government can say he can't be.
  However, that decision still has to be made legally; i.e. in accordance with the law. So the Government couldn't (I hope) refuse an extradition because it was one of their ministers and they liked him. They would need a reasonable ground (or whatever their legal equivalent is - I don't know much about Swedish extradition procedures, but I do about English ones). While I disagree with this article's conclusions, it has some stuff pointing out how the Government would have specific grounds for refusing an extradition request... but to me it seems perfectly reasonable for them not to give hypothetical guarantees - particularly if those guarantees are enshrined in law anyway (such as not extraditing people for political crimes, or in cases of discrimination and persecution). If they get an extradition request, they can dismiss it immediately if it is manifestly unfounded under one of these grounds (or any other ground) but until they receive a request, they can't know if that's the case.
153. Re:or stop hiding... by cheesybagel · 2014-02-13 06:59 · Score: 1
  
  Not just that country. You would be perceived as a nation which does not respect embassies if its in their convenience to do so.
154. Re: or stop hiding... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-02-13 07:32 · Score: 0
  
  "Kangaroo court" seems to be conveniently defined to be any situation you don't like. In Sweden it would be a kangaroo court, in the embassy it would be fair and impartial. Britain would be a kangaroo court outcome as well. Maybe you can argue that he should shop his venue around and be tried in the Eastern District of Texas with the patent troll cases. You guys who only listen or believe in things that you already believe are pretty amazing. Tiresome, though. Worship at the altar of the infallible St. Snowden too?
  Also, nice way to change the subject. You never did respond to the point made that he says he wants to be treated like everyone else, but he wants special circumstances for himself.
155. Re:or stop hiding... by cheesybagel · 2014-02-13 07:32 · Score: 2
  
  Sweden has the biggest military industrial complex in relation to population in the world
  Israel and Switzerland have pretty big military industrial complexes as well. In Sweden's and Switzerland case its because of their policy of neutrality.
156. Re:or stop hiding... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-02-13 07:35 · Score: 0
  
  So Assange is really wanted by the US entertainment industry??? Or the US entertainment industry controls the US justice system?
  
  Is there a grassy knoll involved somewhere in this as well?
157. Re:or stop hiding... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-02-13 07:38 · Score: 0
  
  not in the US you idiot, by 'friendly' intelligence services like egypt which was the case for the two most well known persons. Collected by americans, Drugged and given a ride in CIA planes, - sexually abused by Egyptians. Something you'd like to try?
158. Re:or stop hiding... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-02-13 07:45 · Score: 0
  
  Its an overly simplistic system for dealing with complex interactions in a society with people whose brains' have an average connectivity of 10^14.
  Therefore its really useful if those people can sometimes say, 'no this isn't what was intended/in the public intereset'.
  Of course this brings in subjectivity but that already exists in the legal system.
159. Re:or stop hiding... by Goose+In+Orbit · 2014-02-13 07:59 · Score: 1
  
  Now is it double jeopardy when there was a trial, an appeal, and an appeal to the appeal?
  Next, the appeal to the appeal to the appeal! One trial - not two - so no double jeopardy.
  If the roles had been reversed - the US would be busting a gut to get someone extradited. Two faced or what???
160. Re:or stop hiding... by jafac · 2014-02-13 08:22 · Score: 1
  
  so why wouldn't he just take out Assange the old-fashioned way if we cared about Assange at all?
  I think that they believe that if they can interrogate him, he will reveal other sources (insiders) who may currently be a danger to national security.
  The cult of "national security" can justify pretty much any thing, including rendition, torture, or assassination, if they can justify it to protect the bedwetting conservitard cowards, who are willing to spend any amount of other people's tax money to protect their economic hegemony.
  
  --
  
  These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
161. Re:or stop hiding... by Luckyo · 2014-02-13 08:23 · Score: 1
  
  Difference being that Israel is a state in perpetual war and under perpetual siege as well as perpetual occupier, while Swiss military industry focused mainly on firearms rather than high tech equipment - it's their speciality and they are very good at it. Sweden on the other hand exports cutting edge high tech, such as Gen 4.5 fighter aircraft equipped with AESA radars.
  All while Sweden is not under any kind of military threat and hasn't been for a long time. And its own military is in complete shambles as has been rather openly admitted recently, which comes for a reason - they are secured by friendly Norway from north and west, friendly Finland from east and friendly Denmark from south. They have no reason to spend on it.
  Vast majority of their military technology is export oriented, which is very unusual for a country that hasn't been under any significant threat of war in a long time and has no real strategic military threats on horizon. To continue to function they need good relations with major component suppliers, main one being US. It has been stipulated that one reason for massive capitulation of Sweden on IP rights front to US has been US threat to block sales and licenses of AESA radar components to Saab (which would render Gripen largely unsellable).
162. Re:or stop hiding... by cheesybagel · 2014-02-13 08:40 · Score: 1
  
  There is a lot of US licensed technology in Gripen. AESA radar may be one but the F404 engine is another. There aren't a lot of countries which can manufacture their own military jet aircraft engines. The fact that Sweden can do it, even if its under license, is pretty surprising by itself. There are a lot of countries in Europe which manufacture weapons despite not being actively involved in wars. Besides Switzerland, there's Belgium for example. As for Switzerland they manufacture more than just handheld weapons. Contraves would be one example.
163. Re:or stop hiding... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-02-13 09:04 · Score: 0
  
  Although I generally think that she is not guilty as charged (reading about it, the whole case stinks like a crock of shit) I secretly hope that the Italians decide that she is, and request an extradition. The USA will either have to hand her over, or not.. and like you, I suspect they will try to weasel out of it, which will damage their credibility hugely. Of course, they know this and are undoubtedly expending vast amounts of effort to prevent any such request being issued in the first place.
164. Re:or stop hiding... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-02-13 09:20 · Score: 0
  
  Please. The "injured" parties did not believe they had been raped, and did not seek rape charges. Any third party deciding that they know better than these adult women is just pushing an agenda.
  Capcha: motive
165. Re:or stop hiding... by david_thornley · 2014-02-13 10:26 · Score: 1
  
  Somebody once published the women's accounts on Slashdot. Going from memory,
  The first woman testified that Assange stripped her forcibly, breaking a necklace, lay on top of her and wouldn't let her get to a condom, and then had sex with her. That's rape by any reasonable definition.
  The second woman had voluntary sex with him using a condom, and woke up in the morning to find that Assange's uncondomed penis was in her. That would appear to be sex without consent, particularly since there's no evidence she ever gave Assange permission for sex without a condom.
  I have no knowledge on whether these accounts are true, but if they are it's rape.
  
  --
  "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
166. Re:or stop hiding... by david_thornley · 2014-02-13 10:39 · Score: 1
  
  Can't get to the site through the work filter, but is this the same case that everybody else is citing?
  That was two men, one incident, over ten years ago. The handing-over was widely criticized, both in and out of the country, and has since been declared illegal by Sweden. Got another case?
  
  --
  "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
167. Re:or stop hiding... by guises · 2014-02-13 10:58 · Score: 1
  
  Is having sex with someone while they're sleeping rape under English law? My uninformed understanding is that the other person must be incapacitated in some way, whether chemically incapacitated, or by some disability or some such. It may be gauche to come on to someone while they're asleep, but unless you have some reason to know that they won't wake up or respond then it isn't rape.
  
  Though you wouldn't usually jump right into intercourse without a bit of, you know, groping. Anticipation is important yo. Foreplay.
168. Re:or stop hiding... by Grumbleduke · 2014-02-13 11:17 · Score: 1
  
  Under English law, if someone is asleep there is a presumption that they have not consented to the sexual activity, and that the awake party (or parties) are aware of this.
  However, it is just a presumption. If a defendant can raise some evidence to say that the other party had consented before (impliedly or explicitly), or they reasonably believed they have, the prosecution must then prove that there wasn't consent, and the defendant didn't believe there was.
  So in most cases where someone is asleep and sex starts, it never gets reported to the police (even if it is, actually, rape). Alternatively, if it does come to the attention of the police, the victim might give evidence that they had consented (which might happen in Assange's case). In my limited understanding, these issues only go to the police when it is clearly rape, or there is some other factor. In Assange's case, it was they allegedly went to the police to ask if they could force him to take an STI test, and the police recognised that what was described could amount to rape etc. Which makes me wonder how many other women around the world have been in similar situations with him, but not felt able or willing to go to the police.
  Being incapacitated with drugs etc. works similarly; there is a presumption of no consent, but the defence can try to remove it.
  So in general, if you are likely to engage in any sort of sexual activity with someone, it is best to get a signed consent form filled out in advance (possibly witnessed) - at least, that's what I picked up from studying sexual offences...
169. Re:or stop hiding... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-02-13 11:21 · Score: 0
  
  It's not "me" who is "not making any sense" but the woman who came to accuse Assange. Those are HER claims.
  Also clear from the facts of the case was that she did not want to prosecute Assange, but merely make him undergo a STD test.
  Whatever you think about the woman who made the allegations, it's clear from the facts that she is being used just as much as Assange is.
170. Re:or stop hiding... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-02-13 11:25 · Score: 0
  
  What you say is 100% correct, and 100% relevant to the context surrounding the case, but it does not contradict the summary that Grumbleduke posted at all.
  As has been noted above, both women are being used just as much as Assange is.
171. Re:or stop hiding... by Pseudonym · 2014-02-13 11:30 · Score: 1
  
  I agree that the severity of the case is irrelevant. The number that I want to know is: In how many of those 8162 cases had charges not been filed?
  Obviously different countries have different legal systems, but where I live, requesting an extradition without first charging someone with any crime at all is very unusual indeed.
  
  --
  sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
172. Re: or stop hiding... by Pseudonym · 2014-02-13 12:03 · Score: 1
  
  What a great story that is. How often does it actually happen in practice, as a percentage of actual sexual assaults?
  
  --
  sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
173. Re:or stop hiding... by dbIII · 2014-02-13 12:50 · Score: 1
  
  Consider the Pentagon Papers which mostly embarrassed the former administration instead of the Republican administration of the time of their release. A Republican administration didn't jail that guy.
  
  Saying Assange is playing a waiting game is effectively saying he is desperate, and gambiling on very low odds outcomes
  That is how I see it.
174. Re:or stop hiding... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-02-13 13:28 · Score: 0
  
  Ash Vince = internet code for dumb faggot apparently.
175. Re: or stop hiding... by s.petry · 2014-02-13 14:35 · Score: 1
  
  When a party has had consentual sex several times prior to intercourse while sleeping, it shoul be apparent that the claim is false. If illegal entry was also a charge perhaps there would be some merit. As it was, they had consentual sex a few hours prior, fell asleep, and he decided to wake her up sexually. This happens normally in relationships.
  
  --
  -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
176. Re:or stop hiding... by WindBourne · 2014-02-13 14:37 · Score: 1
  
  I suspect that USA will NOT do anything to him (and would be upset if we did, though I still believe that manning, along with snowden, deserve the death penalty).
  The fact is, that we have NO legal ability to go after him. He did not steal the information. He is not an American. He did not take an oath.
  Of course, we can scream about it, but that is a different issue.
  
  If I were Assange, I would be a lot more concerned about the rape charge. Sweden takes that VERY serious. In fact, his carping about USA, makes me wonder if he is not simply hiding from Sweden. IOW, he is pulling a republican approach to the real issues and screaming about nonsense.
  
  --
  I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
177. Re:or stop hiding... by mjwx · 2014-02-13 15:24 · Score: 1
  
  It would be easier for the US to get him extradited from the UK than from Sweden. Our extradition treaty with the US has far fewer safeguards than does Sweden's. And Sweden wouldn't be able extradite him to the US anyway without him going back to the UK first. I don't see why he can't go to Sweden to face questioning. He seems to have a case to answer, as well he would if the allegations against him were made in the UK (not that this matters legally for a European Arrest Warrant to be valid, but it makes a difference morally).
  Because to go to Sweden he needs to leave the Ecuadorian embassy and the UK police can arrest and extradite him to the US.
  
  --
  Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
178. Re:or stop hiding... by mjwx · 2014-02-13 15:33 · Score: 1
  
  It's the fatal flaw in dear old Julian's argument: He's worried about the Americans getting hold of him, so he'd rather stay in the UK where extradition to the US is easy, rather than go to Sweden where extradition to the US is much harder. Or maybe there's another reason....
  Because he's not in the UK, he's in the Ecuadorian embassy in London, which is Ecuadorian soil according to treaties not even the US is mad enough to break. As soon as he leaves the embassy and enters the UK again, they'll have him bailed into a van and sent to the US for a show trial.
  
  --
  Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
179. Re:or stop hiding... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-02-13 20:21 · Score: 0
  
  No he isn't, he's in the UK. While they receive special treatment, embassies are still part of the host nation. There is some non-UK territory in Great Britain, but it's not an embassy.
180. Re:or stop hiding... by Viol8 · 2014-02-13 20:44 · Score: 1
  
  Uh , one example from 13 years ago which is nothing more than failed asylum seekers deported back to their home country after a failed asylum bit? Is that REALLY the best you can do?? FFS. Your sort will grab onto any passing turd won't you.
181. Re: or stop hiding... by Luckyo · 2014-02-13 21:17 · Score: 1
  
  I was answering your claim that "rape is rape and BDSM practitioners are acutely aware of that" ignoring the fact that these cases have nothing to do with BDSM practitioners but are typically about two people who don't know one another before meeting for drinks that day. Not trying to argue some sort of massive collective anti rape conspiracy.
  Effectively I'm hitting at the point that people who do this have not a faintest clue how the whole BDSM safeguard mechanism against pushing too far (safe words, proper gear, etc) works. That's not their intent to engage in that stuff in the first place, they're going for a quick thrill on both ends, and there's a fact that woman will always have a weapon to wield after the case if she's not satisfied. And as any psychologist who had to work with divorce will tell you, women tend to be significantly more emotional and vindictive in cases of things not going as they would want it in their relationships.
182. Re:or stop hiding... by kbg · 2014-02-13 21:56 · Score: 1
  
  The issue is not the deportation which could be valid for all I know, but that it was carried out illegally. In a civilized country under the rule of laws there should not be any example of circumventing the law WITHOUT any consequences as was in this example. 13 years is not long ago, I doubt there have been massive changes in the legal and political system in Sweden in that time period.
  If you want more examples you can take a look at the Pirate Bay trial, where the US entertainment industry basically controlled the Swedish courts to do their bidding.
183. Re:or stop hiding... by Ash+Vince · 2014-02-14 02:04 · Score: 1
  
  I suggest looking up the allegations against him before going on with your claims in some detail. Even in worst case scenario where judge also happens to be extremist feminist and actually agrees with insanity that is the case, he's extremely unlikely to get jail simply due to legal constraints on punishments.
  Where did I suggest he would get jail time for what he is accused of in Sweden? I didn't. What i did suggest was that we would be deported back to Oz regardless.
  
  --
  I dont read /. to RTFA, I read /. to offend people in ignorance.
184. Re:or stop hiding... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-02-14 02:26 · Score: 0
  
  Making a move on a naked chick sleeping in your bed after having had sex earlier that night is hardly rape.
185. Re:or stop hiding... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-02-14 06:07 · Score: 0
  
  Fun fact: Those leaked state secrets included information about every Coalition nation, every NATO nation, and about China and Russia.
  But none of his fellators think dear, sweet, Vladimir Putin would ever do anything to him. He's just not as evil as Bush or 0bama.
186. Re:or stop hiding... by Kijori · 2014-02-14 10:05 · Score: 1
  
  It's purely a question of where being charged fits into the legal process, I think. In the UK, for example, you're usually charged after being arrested, so you would be extradited first and charged second (because you can't be arrested until you arrive). An example of that was Hussain Osman, who was extradited from Italy and arrested and charged on arrival.
187. Re: or stop hiding... by Kijori · 2014-02-14 10:10 · Score: 1
  
  When a party has had consentual sex several times prior to intercourse while sleeping, it shoul be apparent that the claim is false.
  I don't think that that follows as a matter of logic.
188. Re: or stop hiding... by s.petry · 2014-02-14 10:47 · Score: 1
  
  Then your logic skills are extremely poor. Not much more I can say, except that perhaps you are simply ignorant of the case and facts in the case.
  There are surely circumstances where it "might" have been rape, but not very many that I can think of without inventing scenarios that did not exist. She broke up with him the night before, they were never intimate prior, she refused to have sex with him a few hours earlier, she was mentally handicapped in some way and he was taking advantage of that mental handicap, she was drugged or drunk (and even this is questionable given other factors). None of those things were the case, so it is obviously questionable at best that she was actually raped.
  Further, she found out he had sex with another woman while they were in a sexual relationship. This would indicate a motive for revenge/spite further discounting the claim of rape.
  
  --
  -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
189. Re: or stop hiding... by Kijori · 2014-02-14 12:29 · Score: 1
  
  If you can imagine situations in which it would still be rape despite the woman having consented earlier, clearly it doesn't logically follow that consenting earlier in the evening means it will not be rape to have sex with the person while they sleep.
  In which case it all comes down to the facts, and anyone saying on Slashdot that they know whether he is guilty or not is kidding themselves, because they don't have all the facts.
190. Re: or stop hiding... by s.petry · 2014-02-14 12:31 · Score: 1
  
  You can go read the case and claims just like I did, there is no magic involved in a public case sorry.
  
  --
  -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
191. Re:or stop hiding... by Luckyo · 2014-02-14 13:35 · Score: 1
  
  That is given. These women are both activists for the causes similar to that of Assange and being made tools in US witch hunt is likely the last thing they intended.
192. Re: or stop hiding... by Kijori · 2014-02-14 22:13 · Score: 1
  
  I don't mean to be rude, but I don't think that you've quite understood the process.
  There has not been a public case yet in which the prosecutor has had to lay out the evidence against Assange. There has been no hearing where the object was to determine whether he was guilty.
  I'm guessing that by "read the case" you mean the English High Court case, but that was an extradition hearing. The Court was not required to consider the strength of the case against Assange, and there was no obligation to prove the case. That comes later in the process.
  What's available on the internet is a few leaked documents and some speculation - nothing on which to build a conclusion.
  At present, the only person who has been able to consider all the evidence against Assange is the Swedish prosecutor, who considers that there is a case to answer. In due course a Court will determine whether Assange is guilty, but in the meantime, anyone saying that they've read a few scraps of information here and there, and are therefore able confidently to say that the prosecutor is wrong, hasn't understood how little they know of the facts.
193. Re:or stop hiding... by Goaway · 2014-02-14 22:54 · Score: 1
  
  Swedish law requires him to be interviewed before he can be charged. Of course they are going to issue the extradition request before charging him, otherwise they could never issue a single extradition request ever.
194. Re: or stop hiding... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-02-16 08:34 · Score: 0
  
  He's not charged yet. If they only want to question him they're more than able to. I don't see the problem here.
195. Re: or stop hiding... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-02-16 09:53 · Score: 0
  
  He's in the embassy, no amount of your forum temper tantrums is going to change that. If Sweden wants to question him that badly they can get off their collective incompetent asses. They have options, they just refuse to exercise them.
196. Re: or stop hiding... by Pseudonym · 2014-02-16 16:01 · Score: 1
  
  That wasn't my claim.
  
  --
  sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
197. Re: or stop hiding... by Luckyo · 2014-02-16 19:24 · Score: 1
  
  Sorry, I assumed that AC before you in this thread was you.
198. Re:or stop hiding... by Goose+In+Orbit · 2014-02-17 01:02 · Score: 1
  
  Out of interest - which side of the pond are you?
  From what I've seen of the US coverage - she's being portrayed as some kind of saint-figure. If she'd had any sense she'd have kept out of sight, not written the book (and thus avoided the chat-show circuit) and let the media circus subside. Meanwhile, the real victims - the Kercher family - barely get a mention... it's all about "Foxy Knoxy" and how terrible it is for her.
  And, as ever, where the US leads the UK follows... the media have a lot to answer for.
199. Re: or stop hiding... by s.petry · 2014-02-18 06:58 · Score: 1
  
  It is not me that does not understand. The case has been presented, the filing holds the claims and summary of evidence. Assange may not have been interviewed, but the "case" is open for public inspection. You don't need the legal briefs to understand the case, you need the case to understand the case. You don't need to "see" the evidence to know what is being presented.
  You don't need to see a railroad to know a train is coming, which is why Assange refuses to return.
  
  --
  -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
200. Re: or stop hiding... by Kijori · 2014-02-18 10:07 · Score: 1
  Could you provide a link to the evidence that you consider to be complete?
  My understanding is that:
  i) the case has not been presented;
  ii) there has been no "filing" in the criminal case against him;
  iii) the case - such as exists at the moment - is not open for public inspection (if it were, it would be a bit odd for the pro-Assange websites to be trumpeting leaked documents, surely?).
  I think that if you post a link to the fully presented case it will probably clear things up.
201. Re: or stop hiding... by s.petry · 2014-02-19 04:11 · Score: 1
  
  The evidence is explained in the briefs, and no I won't provide it. Search the Swedish court systems and you will, I read the summary probably back a year and a half ago. As mentioned, this is not "the" evidence but a summary of what the prosecutor had to pursue the case as well as the allegations.
  
  i) the case has not been presented;
  The case had to be presented in order to get an extradition order. Yes, there is an extradition order which is why he can't leave the embassy.
  
  ii) there has been no "filing" in the criminal case against him;
  There are absolutely allegations which have a case filed in courts. See above.
  
  iii) the case - such as exists at the moment - is not open for public inspection (if it were, it would be a bit odd for the pro-Assange websites to be trumpeting leaked documents, surely?)
  Swedish courts don't operate like the USSR, but you need to do enough translation to find the case. If you search Slashdot there have been links posted to translated documents in the past (over a year ago?).
  
  I think that if you post a link to the fully presented case it will probably clear things up.
  If you want knowledge, go get it! A bit of research will go a long way. To translate and find year(s) old sources requires more energy than I'm willing to give up. I gave a few hints for how to search out the case which is sufficient to get you started. Your choice is to either gain knowledge or argue from ignorance. Hopefully you choose the former, but the later is unfortunately more common.
  
  --
  -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
202. Re: or stop hiding... by Kijori · 2014-02-20 09:32 · Score: 1
  
  Every little bit of information that has been leaked about this case has been reproduced on a thousand websites. If a case had been presented there would be innumerable translations and commentaries - it would be easy to find. A cynic would say that the reason you're refusing to give the link is that you know it doesn't exist.
  To respond to your specific comments:
  
  The case had to be presented in order to get an extradition order. Yes, there is an extradition order which is why he can't leave the embassy.
  I know that there was an extradition hearing (judgment text). However, as I explained before, the case did not have to be presented at that hearing, and was not presented at that hearing. The Court reviewed a very small amount of material to ensure that the formal requirements of the Framework Decision were met - that's all. If you're basing a conclusion about Assange's innocence or guilt on that judgment you're building a tower without any foundations.
  
  There are absolutely allegations which have a case filed in courts. See above.
  My use of the phrase "criminal case" was not an accident. My point is that there are no filings that form part of the process by which Assange's guilt or innocence are assessed. You refer me to the English extradition hearing, but that hearing did not (and could not) make any judgement about his guilt.
  
  Swedish courts don't operate like the USSR, but you need to do enough translation to find the case. If you search Slashdot there have been links posted to translated documents in the past (over a year ago?).
  I still can't find this case that's open for inspection. The Swedish prosecutor has a chronology which doesn't refer to any charges having been filed. Justice for Assange has a list of available documents that doesn't include any Swedish case, and states that "no charges have been filed". If you know of this publicly available case, post it! I would love to read it! But nobody else - including the prosecutor and campaigners - seems to have any idea that it exists.
  
  If you want knowledge, go get it! A bit of research will go a long way. To translate and find year(s) old sources requires more energy than I'm willing to give up. I gave a few hints for how to search out the case which is sufficient to get you started. Your choice is to either gain knowledge or argue from ignorance. Hopefully you choose the former, but the later is unfortunately more common.
  The reason that I ask you to post a link to the case that you refer to isn't that I'm lazy and want you to do the work - it's that I think that we are at cross purposes, and you are referring to something that I don't recognise as being a case that's sufficient to judge Assange's innocence or guilt. If you will just post the source that you're relying on we can get to the bottom of it quickly.
203. Re: or stop hiding... by s.petry · 2014-02-20 12:13 · Score: 1
  
  You keep confusing terminologies which could be the cause of your confusion. case != charge != summary != complete != filed != heard, etc.. All of those things are different legal terms and are not the same and can not be used interchangeably. The only case heard, regarding extradition, contained enough information to determine what the prosecutor "has" for evidence. It also contained the charges alleged by both women. Assange's attorneys filed responses/dispositions to those charges which contained his side. That is all public information. Events leading up to the charges are not "leaked", they were filed and have become public documents by Swedish law.
  You don't need the remainder of the case heard, and Assange does not need to be on trial to begin to question the motives for the filed charges nor their authenticity.
  I don't care if you want to do the work, or not. You made a false claim originally, and I still state it's false. Confusing terminology does not make it true, and claiming you have to see the exact evidence in order to know what the evidence is remains false.
  If you choose to ignore that there are motives for his extradition that have nothing to do with these charges, that is further on you. Denial is a nice place to visit, but I personally don't want to live there.
  
  --
  -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
204. Re: or stop hiding... by Kijori · 2014-02-20 19:14 · Score: 1
  
  Right, I think we've got to the position that I thought we might be in to start with. The only public case that you were basing all this on is the extradition hearing - the hearing in which the Court expressly stated that it was not judging Assange's guilt; in which there was literally no consideration of the evidence in relation to one of the allegations, and only cursory consideration in relation to the others; and in which the Swedish prosecutor didn't even appear.
  I suppose if you want to come to a settled judgement on that basis, that's your prerogative. I suspect that it's too big of a gap for us to come to agreement; and in any case the legal system, like me, considers it only to have been a preliminary hearing.
205. Re: or stop hiding... by s.petry · 2014-02-21 05:29 · Score: 1
  
  It was not a criminal trial, so of course the case could not determine guilt. That does not discount or dismiss what was given in that case in the least. The same exact information would be given in a criminal trial if there was to be a trial.
  You claimed that a person could not review that evidence to make a determination of guilt or innocence. That claim is invalid now, and was then. One _can_ review that evidence and make a good determination of guilt or innocence.
  
  --
  -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
206. Re: or stop hiding... by Kijori · 2014-02-21 07:14 · Score: 1
  
  I'm afraid I don't quite follow.
  You accept that the extradition hearing was not trying to determine whether or not Assange was guilty. The prosecutor needed to prove that the European arrest warrant was valid, but didn't need to prove that Assange was guilty. The prosecutor provided evidence to show the arrest warrant was valid, but didn't provide evidence to prove that Arrange was guilty.
  What's the significant of the prosecutor not providing evidence for something that they didn't need to provide evidence for?
207. Re: or stop hiding... by s.petry · 2014-02-21 07:33 · Score: 1
  
  If A then B, this is very basic reasoning.
  
  --
  -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
208. Re: or stop hiding... by Kijori · 2014-02-21 08:03 · Score: 1
  
  OK, so help me out:
  A. There is a hearing at which the prosecutor does not need to provide evidence of guilt.
  B. At the hearing the prosecutor does not provide evidence of guilt.
  C. ??
  D. Assange is not guilty.
  Are you saying (i) that there is no need for C, D just follows logically from A and B; or (ii) there is a need for a C - in which case what goes there?
209. Re: or stop hiding... by s.petry · 2014-02-21 08:23 · Score: 1
  
  Wrong, sorry but you need to think in more reasonable terms. In order to get the extradition order there must be a valid case. You are putting the A and B in the wrong order.
  Further, you have added C and D which simply do not exist. While it may suite your opinion, it does not suite rational thinking.
  
  --
  -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
210. Re: or stop hiding... by Kijori · 2014-02-21 08:29 · Score: 1
  
  There needs to be a case that satisfies the requirements for an extradition order. Those requirements do not include proving Assange is guilty, or likely to be guilty, or providing one single word of evidence proving his guilt.
  If you don't like my ABCD provide your own chain of reasoning.
211. Re: or stop hiding... by s.petry · 2014-02-21 09:15 · Score: 1
  
  The reasoning that you claim I need to provide is exactly the legal process. The process in most European countries (Sweden, UK, German, etc..) is identical to the US. The rule of law has been defined and refined over hundreds of years and is based on Logic and Reason. Your version of the world requires lots of imagination and make believe. You are claiming that your imagination supersedes facts and law. I already pointed out that C and D so not exist. No more conversation needed here, have fun in your fantasy.
  
  --
  -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
212. Re: or stop hiding... by Kijori · 2014-02-21 10:19 · Score: 1
  
  I'm not asking what the legal process is; I'm asking what your chain of logic is that allows you to determine whether someone is guilty based on the evidence at an extradition hearing, where guilt wasn't in issue.
  Here's what I think the position is: I think you're avoiding the question because you know that you can't come up with a logical answer, just like you refused to provide a link to the Swedish court case because you know it doesn't exist, and you refused to identify your evidence because you didn't have any. If I'm wrong, all you have to do is type in your solid logical chain and press submit.
213. Re: or stop hiding... by s.petry · 2014-02-21 10:34 · Score: 1
  
  The Legal process is the Legal process. This is a defined process, go get a book and study. It's based primarily on the Scientific Method, but considers much broader parts of Philosophy called Justice and Morality. Your method does not match! As soon as you have to invent reasons to think your way, it should be obvious that something is wrong. I gave the legal logic and you claimed your imagination was better. To you, I'm sure it is.
  Cya buh bye
  
  --
  -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
214. Re: or stop hiding... by Kijori · 2014-02-21 10:50 · Score: 1
  
  As I said before, I'm not asking about the legal process. I'm asking about the logical process by which you personally are using the facts from the extradition hearing to determine that Assange is innocent.
  I continue to believe that you are deliberately avoiding the question because you have no answer.
215. Re: or stop hiding... by s.petry · 2014-02-21 11:01 · Score: 1
  
  As stated previously, my position is the same as the legal process. I continue to believe that you simply ignore anything that might cause a threat to your opinion. Peace!
  
  --
  -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
216. Re: or stop hiding... by Kijori · 2014-02-21 11:14 · Score: 1
  
  That's not an answer, because it doesn't tell me what you mean by "the legal process". Unless you explain how you think the legal process uses evidence I can't know what you mean.
  If you are serious, all you need to do is write down what your logical process is. If you don't, well, it's very convenient that every time you're challenged on evidence or logic there's a reason that you can't answer the question.
217. Re:or stop hiding... by Vintermann · 2014-02-24 00:15 · Score: 1
  
  So your work filter blocks Human Rights Watch? Interesting.
  "Two men"? You mean two CIA agents, or two torture victims?
  It got no meaningful consequences for anyone, either in Sweden or the US. Italy at least had the guts to issue arrest warrants for the CIA criminals, no such thing in lapdog Sweden.
  I'm not here to entertain your easy dismissals. I'd say the burden is on you to show Sweden's government has changed character. Got anything?
  They used to blindly give the US what they want, even when it violated fundamental human rights .If it was your human rights that were at stake, I think you should be forgiven for not trusting that they have changed.
  
  --
  xkcd is not in the sudoers file. This incident will be reported.
yeah by Anonymous Coward · 2014-02-12 22:57 · Score: 1

yeah, go to the country where you are a wanted criminal... just like Amanda Knox is going to do right?
Difference is, she's not a suspect, she has been found guilty of murder.
1. Re:yeah by Viol8 · 2014-02-12 23:40 · Score: 2
  
  As far as I'm concerned Knox is either guilty or she knows a lot more than she's saying ... ... HOWEVER , any legal system that can convict someone , then drop the conviction after an appeal and release them THEN reinstate the conviction after a couple of judges get together over a capucino and decide to bow to public opinion, frankly doesn't deserve much respect for its ability to carry out fair trials.
2. Re:yeah by Anonymous Coward · 2014-02-12 23:55 · Score: 0
  
  Well we're talking about Assange here and there are vast differences in the cases. I would say it's more likely your government or someone high up had a "friendly word" with the Italian judges, leading them to release her in the first place. That being said, it showed the at least part of the Italian legal system is messed up, but she should still not get away with murder.
3. Re:yeah by Anonymous Coward · 2014-02-13 00:29 · Score: 0
  
  If the US were to follow their own extradition agreements then nothing is messed up and she would be taken by the US police and send to Italy.
  If you are OK with her arguing about that after a murder conviction, why do you have a problem with an extradition request for someone suspected of a less serious crime?
4. Re:yeah by Viol8 · 2014-02-13 00:36 · Score: 1
  
  My government? You should stop assuming everyone who posts here is from the USA. I doubt my government gives a damn about Amanda Knox one way or the other.
5. Re:yeah by MrMickS · 2014-02-13 00:52 · Score: 1
  
  Hmmmm ... most legal systems have appeal processes, and the ability to lodge counter appeals with a higher court. I understand it happens in the US all the time. Why should there be a problem with the Italian justice system because following the conviction one court overturns it on appeal, but later another higher court rules that it shouldn't have been overturned? Isn't that the way the law should work, it gets tested in court until a final judgement is found?
  If Knox was innocent then she would have nothing to fear from Italian justice. Unless, like most USians seem to, she doesn't trust any country outside of the US.
  
  --
  You may think me a tired, old, cynic. I'd have to disagree about the tired bit.
6. Re:yeah by CrimsonAvenger · 2014-02-13 01:39 · Score: 1
  
  Why should there be a problem with the Italian justice system because following the conviction one court overturns it on appeal, but later another higher court rules that it shouldn't have been overturned?
  Of course, that's not what happened. First Appeal ruled that the conviction was invalid and ordered a new trial. Second conviction was as a result of the new trial.
  
  --
  
  "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
7. Re:yeah by Martin+Blank · 2014-02-13 04:55 · Score: 1
  
  In the US, a finding of not guilty almost always immediately ends the trial process due to the prohibition of double jeopardy (trying someone for the same crime more than once). A person who is convicted can appeal to higher courts[1] who generally rule only on the law and not on the facts. Should the appeals court find in favor of the defendant, the case will be handed back down for either retrial (if going to the trial court) or rehearing (if going to an appellate court). If in the latter case, it can be appealed up again or sent back down to the trial court. Retrial can be for either determination of guilt or for sentencing, depending on what is being appealed.
  Getting a not-guilty verdict set aside is almost impossible and hinges on the prosecutor proving malfeasance on the part of the judge or jury, a rare event. Even then, reinstatement of charges is not guaranteed.
  In certain cases, a not-guilty verdict under state charges has resulted in federal charges being brought, perhaps most famously in the Rodney King case. There has long been a great deal of controversy over this. Some claim that it falls under double jeopardy because the defendant is facing trial twice for the same act, but others (including the Supreme Court) believe that it's not as the federal charges are generally of violating civil rights and not for the action itself (i.e., murder or assault).
  Anyway, based on this, I would expect the US to oppose an extradition request based on US law. While Knox might have been extradited had she made her way to the US before the trial began in Italy, since she was found not guilty once, she would be considered untriable in the US and therefore extradition could be blocked.
  [1] This sequence is generally to an appeals court of three judges, occasionally an en banc appeal to a hearing of as many as 11 judges, and then the Supreme Court. The process is effectively the same with both state and federal trials, except that those appealing a state conviction may also try to appeal through federal appeals courts. This rarely works, though.
  
  --
  You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
8. Re:yeah by dryeo · 2014-02-13 16:39 · Score: 1
  
  It's complicated deciding how far a countries rights go in another jurisdiction. As an example is the case of Canada vs Schmidt ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C... ) where some one was acquitted of kidnapping by an American federal court and then charged with child stealing in Ohio and Ohio moved for extradition. The Canadian Supreme Court found that even though in Canada it was obviously a breach of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, section 11h due to the similarity of the laws of kidnapping and child theft
  
  11. Any person charged with an offence has the right ...
  (h) if finally acquitted of the offence, not to be tried for it again and, if finally found guilty and punished for the offence, not to be tried or punished for it again;
  
  The extradition request was granted as American law did not consider it double jeopardy and the Canadian Charter of Rights does not restrict foreign governments.
  Another example is that both Canada and the USA extradite people to countries where the legal system does not recognize the presumption of innocence even though it is a basic right in both our constitutions.
  
  --
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
9. Re:yeah by Anonymous Coward · 2014-02-14 07:05 · Score: 0
  
  BS.. Know was a stupid young girl living in a fantasy world. Why would she know something? There is no evidence other than the fact that she came home to discover the Kersners (sp?) body the next day. You have got to stop reading the tabloids.
  Also the civil law system used in Italy makes the initial judge into what is essentially a prosecutor. There is no "trial" like we have in common law countries until it went to appeal.
He's not in the UK by Anonymous Coward · 2014-02-12 23:27 · Score: 0

Sure, No problem, we agree Julian, just walk thru these gates from Ecuadorian soil into EU territory and we'll totally conduct a deposition in this armored lorry, I mean limo.
1. Re:He's not in the UK by ledow · 2014-02-13 00:46 · Score: 1
  
  A common fallacy. He's on UK soil.
  We just have an internationally-recognised agreement that we do not enter it without permission. It belongs to the UK. We even considered forcing the embassy out of OUR building so that he was no longer in "the embassy". It was legal, but it's dubious and probably immoral and we didn't do it.
  But an embassy is the soil of the host nation. There's just an agreement that we won't enter without permission unless there are extraordinary circumstances (e.g. a fire).
2. Re:He's not in the UK by Anonymous Coward · 2014-02-13 01:29 · Score: 0
  
  They didn't do it because it would have been a very dangerous precedent for UK own embassies located in foreign countries.
Drones will be there first by Anonymous Coward · 2014-02-12 23:34 · Score: 0

Don't count on seeing the lawyers. One day we'll see US drones and plenty of dust.
That's how they work!
Re:Coward by gl4ss · 2014-02-12 23:36 · Score: 0

How about you stop hiding away and come out to answer the charges against you? You can stay there for as long as you like, but don't expect us to listen to any terms you dictate.
the charges in sweden aren't really the problem... even if they went through, they would result in a slap on the wrists.
the problem is swedens history of, how to say, fucked up shipping aways that is the problem (and since the politicians there don't want to guarantee otherwise, it's a resonable thing to do to not risk it. even if the swedish politicians and officials responsible would be sacked like in a case before it would be a bit late for assange if he by that time was in gitmo or some underground facility in USA).

--
world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
Re:Coward by rvw · 2014-02-12 23:49 · Score: 1

How about you stop hiding away and come out to answer the charges against you? You can stay there for as long as you like, but don't expect us to listen to any terms you dictate.
So tell us, Anonymous Coward - why should be listen to you?
It isn't an exception by Anonymous Coward · 2014-02-12 23:55 · Score: 1

It isn't an exception to question him in the UK.
The exceptions are
a) refusing to do so
b) issuing an EAW for someone not actually wanted to face charges
c) issuing an EAW for someone who was allowed to leave by the issuing government
d) issuing an EAW from the PROSECUTING LAWYER *NOT* the judge
(eliding all the errors in procedure that have killed any possible case in the actual docket)
hmm umm by Anonymous Coward · 2014-02-12 23:56 · Score: 0

And don't bother to search, for how Sweden's "rape laws" are set-up. Laws aren't universal, forcing yourself upon a women in one country is perfectly normal despite laws against it, if they even have laws against it, while in others it is considered a criminal act. If I remember right if you do not wear a condom while engaging in intercourse, the Law in Sweden can charge you with rape.
I have to research what is exactly going on with Assange and these [what appears to be phoney charges] charges to find out if he in fact forced himself on to a women. The fact remains he is not a 'normal' citizen because he is wanted by the US and the US appears to be bribing other countries to have him in custody.
However, it appears he refuses to make any statements or be interviewed via video conferencing. And I can;t say that with certainty, because the Police in these countries refuse to wan tot conduct anything else but an in person interrogation.
Internal politics? by uffe_nordholm · 2014-02-12 23:58 · Score: 5, Interesting

There may very well be good reason for JA to not want being extradited to Sweden, but there may be other reasons than discussed previously here that explain why the Swedish authorities are acting the way they are.

One reason is that the prosecutor in charge of the case may have found herself a useful tool that she can use to further her own ambitions in something completely unrelated: she is known to be a feminist and has stated in at least one interview that it must be possible to punish men even after a court has found them to be innocent. She is also a member of the same political party as one of the (possible) victims. Which just happens to be the same political party to which the defense attorney belongs! My conclusion is that the suspicion of internal politics cannot be put to rest until more evidence appears.

-----------

Just to point out a few strange facts in this sordid case:
- JA found out he was wanted for questioning not by being told be the authorities, but by being told be the media. I cannot remember another case where this has happened.
- the prosecutors office called a press conference to announce JA was wanted for questioning. I have never heard of them doing anything similar in any other case.
- the two (possible) victims of rape have the same lawyer. Also this is a first: it does not matter how many victims are involved in a court case, they get their own lawyer and do not share this lawyer with anybody else involved in the same case.

-----------

Full disclosure: I live in Sweden and it is my personal opinion that the prosecutor handling this case at the moment is doing so for personal reasons and should be removed from her position.
1. Re:Internal politics? by ledow · 2014-02-13 01:11 · Score: 1, Interesting
  
  Then argue for mistrial.
  Argue for undue process.
  Argue for an unfair trial.
  Argue against the law that says you can't have one lawyer represent two people in a case (sorry, "class action lawsuit"? Why wouldn't you allow this unless there was a specific conflict of interest? And in this case, the "interest" is in bringing the same guy in both cases for the same crime. "Sorry, your honour, but my opponent can't have that lawyer as he once represented someone in a similar case?", no not unless there's a specific conflict of interest).
  The problem is, all of those things - with even the crappiest lawyer in the world - can be argued against and changed. This is why court decisions get appealed all the time. Hell, leave them until after the trial and then call mistrial and they HAVE to do it all over again with changes made. But that's not what's happening.
  Hell, if you did it properly, he could have had the trial already in his absence by appointing a lawyer. It's not unheard of. Fact is, he's not "on trial" yet. Because he's failed to even allow himself to be questioned. He's fallen at the first hurdle, which is why all the above suggestions of mine haven't happened - there's not yet any venue to argue that to.
  And at the end of the day, he's hiding out in an embassy in a foreign country - who will charge him with skipping bail the second he emerges - in order to avoid even the questioning. The "trial" has not yet even started. You can be tried in court "in absentia" if their case was that cast-iron, but they haven't. Not because the case is that cast-iron but because they haven't even got close to doing anything but follow procedure - investigate allegations, get both sides of stories, see if charges are viable, press for them in a court.
  He's in no worse a position than the guy that run off to Europe with a schoolgirl. No charges existed but they can still do the media talks, the police hunt, arrest him, question him. "Arrest" != "conviction" or even "charge". You arrest someone to investigate a potential crime and peruse the possibility that charges are necessary. Assange is avoiding ARREST. Which is, in itself, a criminal offence.
2. Re:Internal politics? by durin · 2014-02-13 01:25 · Score: 1
  
  "Assange is avoiding ARREST"
  Well, technically, he's avoiding a hearing on Swedish soil, which really isn't a criminal offense.
  
  --
  Why, yes! I AM new here.
3. Re:Internal politics? by Charliemopps · 2014-02-13 02:10 · Score: 2
  
  Ah no, he's avoiding extradition to the United States where he would most assuredly be tortured, put through a sham military trial and then never heard from again. I wont even argue if he's guilty of the allegations in Sweden. He certainly should face the authorities on that, but not at the risk of his own life. Secret courts and secret rulings have a tendency to screw up "Justice"
4. Re:Internal politics? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-02-13 04:06 · Score: 0
  
  Bullsh*t... JA was more likely to be extradited from UK than he ever was from Sweden. The laws specifically say he has to be returned to the UK from Sweden afterwards.
5. Re:Internal politics? by SvnLyrBrto · 2014-02-13 04:19 · Score: 1
  
  Proving malfeasance after the fact is all well and good. But it doesn't solve the fundamental problem: Even "just" an arrest still results in the loss of your freedom. The fact that you're being held at the police station or jail instead of prison makes no difference. If he did not, in fact, rape those women, and they are trying to frame him for a crime he did not commit; he still faces a loss of freedom, and the actions being taken against him are an abuse of governmental power of the highest and most intolerable order. The problem is, that those sorts of people are tolerated. Have you ever heard of an officer or prosecutor who falsely arrested or charged someone being prosecuted themselves; or even fired as unfit to serve the public?
  Why would or should he cooperate, in any way whatsoever, with corrupt government officials who have broken their trust with the public in the worst way possible, and are trying to frame and imprison him for a crime that he didn't commit? Why would anyone? Would you happily take that fall? I wouldn't.
  And, on the other hand, he did, in fact, rape a bunch of women; then he is a scumbag of scumbags; and why would it surprise you that he's doing everything he can to get out of it?
  Either way, from his perspective, it doesn't make a lick of sense for him to help them out.
  
  --
  Imagine all the people...
6. Re:Internal politics? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-02-13 06:36 · Score: 0
  
  Whatever you do, pursue a position where you're not in control of your fate in any way? You keep saying argue like it's rational for an individual to surrender themselves to society in his position and then just try to talk his way out of it.
7. Re:Internal politics? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-02-13 06:42 · Score: 0
  
  via the USA?
8. Re:Internal politics? by hubie · 2014-02-13 08:11 · Score: 1
  
  where he would most assuredly be tortured, put through a sham military trial and then never heard from again.
  Why do you think this? Journalistic privilege is held very highly in the US. He would have the entire journalism industry on his side. From the Pentagon Papers on, I don't think any journalists have been convicted of revealing classified info. In fact, it just happened recently with a Fox News reporter.
  Also, why would he be put through a military trial? Manning was because he was in the military, and he was the one who actually took the classified info.
9. Re:Internal politics? by hubie · 2014-02-13 08:17 · Score: 1
  
  When I said that it happened recently with a Fox News reporter (James Rosen), I didn't mean that he was convicted of anything, I mean that the Obama administration huffed and puffed but knew they didn't have a legal leg to stand on.
10. Re:Internal politics? by Uberbah · 2014-02-13 10:11 · Score: 1
  
  Journalistic privilege is held very highly in the US. He would have the entire journalism industry on his side.
  
  On some other planet where the U.S. press isn't a willing sycophant and stenographer for the U.S. "security" complex? Where it hasn't shown overt hostility to Greenwald, a fellow member of the press, much less leakers like Assange?
11. Re:Internal politics? by Uberbah · 2014-02-13 10:21 · Score: 1
  
  And at the end of the day, he's hiding out in an embassy in a foreign country - who will charge him with skipping bail the second he emerges - in order to avoid even the questioning.
  
  Errr did you even read the summary? He's repeatedly offered to answer questions, either remotely by phone or in the Ecuadorian embassy. This is all moot, though, because Assange has offered to return to Sweden in return for a promise not to be extradited to the United States. Offers made before he sought asylum.
12. Re:Internal politics? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-02-14 05:18 · Score: 0
  
  So you've figured out the plan.
  Now I will have to send some secret agents to arrest and torture you.
  You don't think it would be just a little bit obvious if something like that happened?
  You don't think if that was the intent, that some accident wouldn't have befallen him already? Food poisoning, allergy, heart attack?
  Do you believe GW Bush was behind the JFK assassination and faked moon landing, too?
He will by ledow · 2014-02-13 00:07 · Score: 2, Insightful

He'll stand in a British court.
To answer the charge of skipping bail, contempt of court, etc. Then he can - LIKE HE ALWAYS COULD HAVE - argue that he should be legitimately put on trial in a "friendly" country. And he'll go through the legal system, same as anyone else. And then the legal system will decide if the law allows him to or not (I imagine it would be hard to argue UK jurisdiction over Swedish charges performed by an Australian, but it's not infeasible if enough prejudice could be proven).
Problem is, you didn't want to argue that several years ago. And you skipped bail, so we have no reason to believe it's not a delaying / avoidance tactic. So now you'll stand in a British court, probably be imprisoned by us for skipping bail for so long and so deliberately, and then WILL NOT ESCAPE our custody if they are required to hand you over to the Swedish anyway. Which they probably are, given the way EU law works.
Fact is, I'd have had much more respect if he'd done his play to cameras, and then just followed through the legal system properly. We would have all kept an eye on it to make sure suspicious things didn't happen, and at no point would you have broken the law.
But he didn't. He went through the courts and when he didn't get the answer he wanted, he skipped bail deliberately. So go rot in jail for a year or two FIRST and then you can come back to the original rape-charge issue and we'll think about it.
1. Re:He will by serviscope_minor · 2014-02-13 00:14 · Score: 1, Troll
  
  Fact is, I'd have had much more respect if he'd done his play to cameras, and then just followed through the legal system properly.
  Why? I don't find stupidity to be wothy of respect.
  He followed through the legal system as far as it went and his extradition to Sweden was imminent.
  The thing is, Sweden have a proven history of being active in extraordinary renditions---sending people to be tortured by the CIA---and the Swedish authorities refused to confirm that he wouldn't be bundled straight off to the US. Certain members of the US government were also baying for blood at the time. In other words he had a very good point and it would have been a dumb move for him to have gone to Sweden.
  Better for him to rot in gaol for a year or two than get tortured by the CIA.
  
  --
  SJW n. One who posts facts.
2. Re:He will by ledow · 2014-02-13 00:43 · Score: 1
  
  Except when he'll rot in jail for a year or two and THEN get tortured by the CIA.
  Point is, he's achieved nothing that puts people on his side, especially not the Brits who are paying to supervise the embassy, in trade negotiations with the embassy, and who'll have to charge him when he comes out, and then inevitably jail him BEFORE doing exactly what we were doing anyway (which, I'd like to point out, we followed through as much as legally possible, even refusing several extradition orders on the basis that they contained minor errors, etc.).
  We did everything legally possible to help him. When it got to the point where he was having to go anyway, he screwed us. And is STILL costing me money. And will continue to for many years, most likely. And what's he achieved? From being "on the run", he's stuck in an embassy with no escape. Even the latest whistleblower who has REAL cause to worry did better than that and didn't cost me a penny and is currently in a country prepared to host him.
  Assange is now just a verified criminal, in a confined space, under constant police surveillance, and going to go to court/jail AND be required to show up in Sweden. Before he was just required to show up in Sweden. I don't get how that's NOT stupid.
3. Re:He will by MrMickS · 2014-02-13 00:59 · Score: 2
  
  Assange strikes me as someone that's lost in his own self importance. He's become more important than Wikileaks. This often happens to people placed in the spotlight. The reports of his actions in Sweden don't paint him in a very good light.
  All that said is doesn't make any sense, other than flexing of muscles, for the Swedish Prosecutor not to call his bluff and interrogate him in the UK (or Ecuador as he is at the moment). Its just posturing and dick waving on behalf of the Prosecutor not to do it. If they have the interrogation in the Ecuadorian Embassy and then press charges the grounds for his asylum become more shaky. Just play out the scenario and let him hang himself.
  
  --
  You may think me a tired, old, cynic. I'd have to disagree about the tired bit.
4. Re:He will by pantaril · 2014-02-13 01:01 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Fact is, I'd have had much more respect if he'd done his play to cameras, and then just followed through the legal system properly. We would have all kept an eye on it to make sure suspicious things didn't happen, and at no point would you have broken the law.
  Suspicious things already did happen. Interpol invovlemnt in this kind of charges is unheard of. The constant monitoring of his residence by several UK policemens is also unheard of. The whole sequence of events after the "sexual assault" case his highly suspicious (he was questioned, than he was released and told he can travel off the country, after he did it, suddenly, both of the "victims" changed their minds and he is wanted for another questioning again). All of this makes me believe that this is indeed political case and mr. Assange is right to be afraid to travel to sweeden.
5. Re:He will by jez9999 · 2014-02-13 01:48 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  Point is, he's achieved nothing that puts people on his side, especially not the Brits who are paying to supervise the embassy
  Speak for yourself. I'm a Brit and if I had any real say in our so-called democracy, my tax money would be being used to send Assange on a flight to Ecuador and tell Sweden and the US to fuck off and stop wasting everybody's time.
  
  --
  == Jez ==
  Do you miss Firefox? Try Pale Moon.
6. Re:He will by Anonymous Coward · 2014-02-13 02:09 · Score: 0
  
  Fact is, I'd have had much more respect if he'd done his play to cameras, and then just followed through the legal system properly. We would have all kept an eye on it to make sure suspicious things didn't happen, and at no point would you have broken the law.
  First, your respect is worth exactly 0 in any unit of measure you choose.
  Second, keeping an eye on how dirty stuff happens hasn't even prevented it to happen. Not even once. And Assange knows this.
  So, third, had he follow "due process" he would be on some US-managed prission (probably outseide US land) and deprived of any right. Assuming he was be still alive...
7. Re:He will by Anonymous Coward · 2014-02-13 02:34 · Score: 0
  
  AC Brit here too. Feel the same.
  Hell- I'd pay for his flight to Ecuador myself. Comments on his personality or motives are irrelevant to me- the value of wikileaks is all I am concerned about.
8. Re:He will by DarkOx · 2014-02-13 02:42 · Score: 1
  
  I don't know what the rules are in the UK, in the US there are legal actions an other citizen might file to try and force a prosecutor or district attorney's office take some action they are ostensibly legally required to do such as charging someone who is widely suspected to be violating the law.
  These are rarely successful though for reasons of standing. Is there really anything standing in the way of UK executive agencies for just saying "you know Assange just isn't a threat to the population and therefore isn't a law enforcement priority regardless of his legal status so we are going to pull the resources away from watching him?"
  I mean they can still arrest him when/if he does something impossibly stupid like try and checkin at an airport or cross a customs controlled border but seems the UK is doing it to themselves as far as the 'cost' of watching him sit in the Ecuadorian embassy goes.
  
  --
  Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
9. Re:He will by Nidi62 · 2014-02-13 03:54 · Score: 2
  
  Interpol invovlemnt in this kind of charges is unheard of.
  Any state can report a suspect to Interpol if the suspect is believed to have gone to another country or is on the run. And in any case, it's not like Interpol has SWAT teams flying all over the world with automatic weapons in black helicopters-it's a liason organization that facilitates cooperation between the law enforcement of other states. Their agents do not make arrests or even conduct investigations: they provide data, logistics, reporting, and coordination services. Any member state can report a person/suspect to Interpol and they will publish it as long as there is no clear political, military, racial, or religious justification for the charges.
  
  --
  The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
10. Re:He will by SvnLyrBrto · 2014-02-13 04:28 · Score: 1
  
  Rotting for a year or two in jail before being packed off to be tortured and murdered by the CIA is still a year or two when he's not being tortured and murdered by the CIA.
  A lot can happen in a year or two. Administrations can change on either side of the pond. Rendition could be ended for reasons of scandal or people in general finding their moral compass. Public opinion could swing in his favor after more government malfeasance is exposed. He could die peacefully and painlessly of natural causes. The horse, as the story goes, may even learn to sing.
  
  --
  Imagine all the people...
11. Re:He will by Anonymous Coward · 2014-02-13 04:58 · Score: 0
  
  Why would JA do what you suggest? That would put him in jail for a year or two, and not keep him in the spotlight to further his own agenda. He doesn't want to ever go to trial; the longer this drags out, the longer the spotlight is on him.
  Everyone has an agenda in this thing, even JA.
12. Re:He will by Anonymous Coward · 2014-02-13 05:00 · Score: 0
  
  Agreed. If I was in charge, I would simply ensure that the police gradually reduce their presence at the embassy. Eventually ending up with one person on duty, during the day. And then be *very* surpised when JA turns up in Ecuador :) Problem solved. As a bonus I can blame "austerity" for the need to reduce the police presence.
13. Re:He will by Grumbleduke · 2014-02-13 05:35 · Score: 2
  
  The thing is, Sweden have a proven history of being active in extraordinary renditions---sending people to be tortured by the CIA---and the Swedish authorities refused to confirm that he wouldn't be bundled straight off to the US.
  And the UK has also been implicated in the extraordinary rendition stuff. And there was a big scandal about it in Sweden (over the 2 people who were subject to it), and a big international investigation, and chances are that some people in Sweden would have got in a lot of trouble had the responsible minister not been assassinated. The European community in general is somewhat ashamed of its involvement in the US's extraordinary rendition operations, and has taken steps to prevent further breaches of law.
  The two renditions happened in 2001, over a decade ago, and since then Sweden has significantly changed its rules on renditions (causing something of a diplomatic incident with the US in 2006). The fact that Sweden was proven to have been involved, and came out and put a stop to it arguably makes them safer than other places which haven't put the same sort of restrictions in place.
  As for not confirming that they wouldn't bundle him off... iirc what they didn't do was say that they would refuse extradition (which is perfectly fair), rather than saying they wouldn't bundle him off (which would be illegal anyway).
14. Re:He will by Anonymous Coward · 2014-02-13 07:40 · Score: 0
  
  The fuck cares what YOU respect? Plenty of worthwhile people value his contribution, what about yours? Score : 3? Lol. Fuck off twat.
15. Re:He will by Kijori · 2014-02-13 08:15 · Score: 1
  
  This is complete nonsense.
  
  Interpol invovlemnt in this kind of charges is unheard of.
  If you have no idea what you're talking about, everything is "unheard of".
  Where a European State seeks to prosecute someone in another European country it is completely normal for Interpol to handle the communication between forces, and (according to Interpol's stats, and counting both formal notices and communications only sent to a particular country) happens about 20,000 times a year.
  Notices can be issued for a wide range of offences. The first page of published notices on the Interpol website included, at the time of this comment, individuals wanted in connection with murder, rape, sexual assault, forging a passport and "unlawfully using a computer with the intention to commit an offence".
  
  The constant monitoring of his residence by several UK policemens is also unheard of
  This is a little misleading, since it ignores the obvious reasons why this is the case: it ignores that Assange's case is very unusual, since the police know exactly where he is and have a warrant for his arrest, but cannot carry it out; and it ignores that Hans Crescent and the surrounding streets are home to a number of embassies and missions, meaning that there would often be police there in any case.
  It's also not true to say that it's unheard of - in other cases of people taking refuge in embassies, police or other state authorities have waited outside to apprehend them.
  
  he was questioned, than he was released and told he can travel off the country, after he did it, suddenly, both of the "victims" changed their minds and he is wanted for another questioning again
  Do you have a source for this? I've never heard that the alleged victims "changed their minds" (which, I feel compelled to say, is a bit of a distasteful turn of phrase) and it would surprise me that their statements would be released to the public.
16. Re:He will by Anonymous Coward · 2014-02-13 08:23 · Score: 0
  
  Interpol has been used by Sweden to attempt to collect speeding tickets. So this doesn't seam unusual to me at all.
  Source: Five year old me asking mommy why the cops where looking for my daddy. I'll have to ask me dad if he was ever made to pay the fines...
17. Re:He will by Uberbah · 2014-02-13 10:05 · Score: 1
  
  Assange strikes me as someone that's lost in his own self importance
  You strike me as a person repeating a tautology.
  
  The reports of his actions in Sweden don't paint him in a very good light.
  Reports of Richard Jewell didn't paint him in a very good light, either.
  
  All that said is doesn't make any sense, other than flexing of muscles, for the Swedish Prosecutor not to call his bluff and interrogate him in the UK (or Ecuador as he is at the moment). Its just posturing and dick waving on behalf of the Prosecutor not to do it.
  What really makes it obvious that this is a dick-waving government is the fact that Assange has said he would voluntarily return to Sweden in exchange for a promise not to be extradited to the United States. An offer made before he sought asylum with Ecuador, an offer that has been consistently ignored.
18. Re:He will by serviscope_minor · 2014-02-14 00:04 · Score: 1
  
  Point is, he's achieved nothing that puts people on his side, especially not the Brits who are paying to supervise the embassy,
  The fact that the police are wasting money (actually, it's probably not the police---they were being forced to put some stupid number of police outside by the politicians) on what is essentially a pretty minor thing is not his fault. It's the fault of the politicians pressuring the police to waste money.
  If you want to blame Assange for politicians being stupid, you can go ahead and to that, but really, the stupidity is all theirs.
  We did everything legally possible to help him.
  Yes, and it wasn't enough.
  When it got to the point where he was having to go anyway, he screwed us.
  You are mistaken. He didn't screw me personally in any way. He didn't screw you either. He has merely illustrated how screwed you already are (see below).
  Before he was just required to show up in Sweden. I don't get how that's NOT stupid.
  You are insinuating that it was a static situation and all that happened was that Assange moved to screw things up. That is patently false.
  There are only two choices:
  1) Be in Sweden with authorities who have a record of sending people to the CIA to be tortured and explicitly without a promise from those authorities to not do that
  2) Be effectively imprisoned but safe from the threat of torture in the embassy.
  You are pretending that a third option exists:
  3) Go to sweden and somehow not risk being deported and tortured.
  The option never existed, even though you seem to be under the impression that it did. He had a choice of two bad options and chose the least worst.
  The thing is you think he's screwed us by choosing that. He hasn't. All he has done is revealed how screwed we really are: with no evidence of a crime, you can be deported to a country which sends people to be tortured.
  
  --
  SJW n. One who posts facts.
19. Re:He will by Anonymous Coward · 2014-02-14 05:22 · Score: 0
  
  So, you believe anyone can ignore the rule of law if they're afraid of the outcome?
  Or only certain people?
  Is that "liberal"?
  And has anyone provided any credible evidence the US plans to torture a well-known public figure and make him disappear? Stalin would have done so in 1922, but even under 0bama, the US is not Stalinist Russia. This is a masturbation fantasy created by leftards who seem to secretly crave repression to validate their loathing of being held to the same standards as mere people.
20. Re:He will by Anonymous Coward · 2014-02-14 05:24 · Score: 0
  
  I'm a Brit, and if I had any say I'd have the SAS open up his throat on pay per view, and tell the whiners to stop wasting everyone's time.
  Hilarious to see "liberals" defending a narcissistic, sociopathic, misogynistic rapist whose only goal is self-aggrandizing headlines.
Police spying on own Police .. by Anonymous Coward · 2014-02-13 00:23 · Score: 0

"The report in a Sunday newspaper suggested that the Ombudsman decided to hire a British security consultancy company after it became concerned that its internal communications system was being bugged.

The consultants allegedly concluded that the commission was being targeted using controlled technology, which was not commercially available or sold to non government agencies ..

A second wi-fi system had been created to allow the data to be examined, using an IP address in Britain while electronically concealing the identities and whereabouts of those involved in the spying." link
1. Re:Police spying on own Police .. by ledow · 2014-02-13 00:53 · Score: 1
  
  Not really. "Ireland" isn't part of the UK. It's not British either.
  UK = United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (AN ENTIRELY SEPARATE THING!)
  GB = England, Wales, Scotland.
  Ireland is Irish, uses Euros, has its own government, and is independent of the UK. That's part of what the whole historical Irish/UK problems were about - an independent Ireland free of UK interference and "giving back" Northern Ireland (AN ENTIRELY SEPARATE THING) to Ireland (Eire).
  The Garda are Irish. It's the UK spying on the Irish. Which we've been doing since the 70's at least, after all the trouble with the IRA blowing up our buildings and killing our civilians (and, obviously in modern times, us doing things just as illegal back to them).
2. Re:Police spying on own Police .. by ledow · 2014-02-13 00:59 · Score: 1
  
  For future reference:
  http://howbritishareyou.com/wp...
ahhh by Anonymous Coward · 2014-02-13 00:26 · Score: 0

Well, the US has an extradition agreement with that is a legal system that is supposed to accept the procedures and the decisions of that legal system.
If you feel free to question the Italian legal system and their extradition requests for a murder conviction, then you should accept that Assage might be questioning the fairness of the request of the Swedish (and the US behind that) legal system and their fairness.
Either everybody abides by the rules (then Assage goes to Sweden and Knox goes to Italy) or everybody argues about the rules and nobody goes anywhere.
1. Re:ahhh by krlynch · 2014-02-13 02:08 · Score: 1
  
  There has been no extradition request from Italy.
Extradition from Sweden is easier by mal0rd · 2014-02-13 00:48 · Score: 4, Informative

I'm really surprised how many highly rated comments claim extradition from the UK would be easier. Extradition from Sweden to the US would almost certainly happen. Take for example this fact:

Sweden has a bilateral agreement with the United States which would allow it to surrender Julian Assange without going through the traditional tests and standards of regular, lengthy extradition procedures.
How could anyone reasonably expect him to willfully submit to that? It seems highly likely he would end up rotting in a US jail for life, unheard and unseen.
1. Re:Extradition from Sweden is easier by Anonymous Coward · 2014-02-13 01:21 · Score: 0
  
  Unheard and Unseen? You exaggerate, friend!
  He would be both heard and seen, once they, after weeks of 'enhanced interrogation', finally get his broken shell to recant his traitorous seditionist actions, and also pin a few extras on him (did you know the last three babiey s a certain senator shagged to death were actually instead murder-violated by assange? But that's not nearly as bad as this newest piece of information; it turns out Julien Assange CAUSED the BP oil leak! That's right!), finally executing him post-mock-trial once he stops spouting any names he may or may not ever have worked with (eh; good enough; at worst the fake name combinations are now new additions to no-fly lists).
2. Re:Extradition from Sweden is easier by CrimsonAvenger · 2014-02-13 01:24 · Score: 1
  
  So, a pro-Assange website asserts this. Is there any REAL evidence that this is true?
  
  --
  
  "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
3. Re:Extradition from Sweden is easier by Anonymous Coward · 2014-02-13 01:36 · Score: 0
  
  Why don't you have a look for yourself, you lazy git?
4. Re:Extradition from Sweden is easier by Anonymous Coward · 2014-02-13 01:38 · Score: 0
  
  Yes, on the website.
5. Re:Extradition from Sweden is easier by coolmoose25 · 2014-02-13 02:48 · Score: 2
  
  "How could anyone reasonably expect him to willfully submit to that? It seems highly likely he would end up rotting in a US jail for life, unheard and unseen."
  
  You are obviously not from the US so let me explain this to you. Our Constitution guarantees a right to a speedy trial. If JA wants a speedy trial, he'll get one, and will not "rot in a US jail for life" unless he was convicted and given a life sentence (Which in the US translates to roughly 10 years depending on your age and the leniency of your parole board)
  
  What you are actually thinking about is Guantanomo, where I will agree we have imprisoned enemy combatants (ie. Prisoners of War) who are not subject to the Constitutional projections that would be extended to JA, like any other US resident...
  
  --
  Brawndo: It's what plants crave!
6. Re:Extradition from Sweden is easier by durin · 2014-02-13 03:33 · Score: 1
  
  Yeah. But then there's this:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
  'Padilla was held for three and a half years as an "enemy combatant."'
  Although to give you the benefit of the doubt, I don't know what you meant by "speedy".
  
  --
  Why, yes! I AM new here.
7. Re:Extradition from Sweden is easier by aralin · 2014-02-13 04:35 · Score: 1
  
  He would likely get several consecutive life sentences in US or even a death sentence. He would rot or die in jail.
  
  --
  If programs would be read like poetry, most programmers would be Vogons.
8. Re:Extradition from Sweden is easier by Anonymous Coward · 2014-02-13 05:07 · Score: 1
  
  No, there isn't. It's horseshit from the pro-assange folks. Here's the actual text of the treaty:
  http://www.mcnabbassociates.com/Sweden%20International%20Extradition%20Treaty%20with%20the%20United%20States.pdf
  Article II states the charges with which someone can be extradited. The criminal charges with which this comes into effect are physical violence charges like murder, rape, and assault, drug dealing charges, smuggling, counterfeiting and financial fraud. Anything the US could charge him with does not fall under this treaty.
9. Re:Extradition from Sweden is easier by Grumbleduke · 2014-02-13 05:41 · Score: 1
  
  I think the person who wrote that page may have been a little confused. If you read a bit further down they copy the relevant part of the US-Sweden supplemental treaty:
  
  If the extradition request is granted in the case of a person who is being prosecuted or is serving a sentence in the territory of the requested State for a different offense, the requested State may:
  b) temporarily surrender the person sought to the requesting State for the purpose of prosecution. The person so surrendered shall be kept in custody while in the requesting State and shall be returned to the requested State after the conclusion of the proceedings against that person in accordance with conditions to be determined by mutual agreement of the Contracting States.
  That's the temporary surrender procedure - but if you note the first 6 words, it only apples after the normal extradition process has been successful; it is for situations where extradition is approved by the suspect is already on trial or in prison in the extraditing state. So it still has to go through the traditional tests and so on.
  Anyone asserting that extradition from Sweden to the US would almost certainly happen should be treated with scepticism, as there is little evidence to support this either way - until there is evidence that the US is actually charging Assange with anything. What we can be pretty certain of is that he will get his full due process in Sweden, then the UK, then the ECtHR, before he ends up in the US.
10. Re: Extradition from Sweden is easier by Nygmus · 2014-02-13 06:38 · Score: 1
  
  For citizens. Which JA is not. The dogs would tear him to bits behind closed doors in a no-press show trial.
11. Re:Extradition from Sweden is easier by Anonymous Coward · 2014-02-13 07:00 · Score: 0
  
  They could claim his involvement with wikileaks has lead to the murder of US personnel through released information and therefore is an accomplice.
  Not sure quite how they'd legally put this but I suspect it could be done.
12. Re:Extradition from Sweden is easier by nbauman · 2014-02-13 07:02 · Score: 1
  
  You are obviously not from the US so let me explain this to you. Our Constitution guarantees a right to a speedy trial.
  I'm from the US too. Our Constitution guarantees a lot of things. But the authorities who run this country don't let you have those rights. Especially non-citizens.
  In the US federal prosecutors can lie. They can falsely tell the judge that they have information that proves you're a criminal, but they can't disclose it because that would be a national security threat (even when it isn't). As they did for example to Rahinah Ibrahim. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04...
  We have a Constitutional right to hear the charges against us, cross-examine witnesses, and rebut those charges. But we can't get those rights any more when the government doesn't feel like it. And they don't feel like it in national security cases.
  And you can be tried before a rubber-stamp judge, or a hanging jury of federal civil servants from Virginia.
  You're claiming that Julian Assange should trust a system like that?
  You sound like the fox in Aesop's fables.
13. Re:Extradition from Sweden is easier by Anonymous Coward · 2014-02-13 07:22 · Score: 0
  
  They could try, but a law school grad student could see the holes in that. First the charge would have to show proof that Assange directly (not wikileaks, as a non-profit they're their own legal entity) released information that was a direct instigator of someone to conduct an attack that killed a specific person, and even then the best they could hope for is Reckless Endangerment or Public Endangerment, which while under some circumstances those charges are felony charges, they aren't covered under the extradition treaty. It'd be a hell of a long shot by a US attorney to make that attempt and it'd be easily defeated by even a weak lawyer in defense.
14. Re:Extradition from Sweden is easier by jafac · 2014-02-13 08:17 · Score: 1
  
  Dude's not a terrorist.
  I don't understand why; when we (the USA) want a terrorist, we can just go start a 10+ year-long invasion and occupation of a foreign country. (and still not succeed until we find out that he's in a different country altogether, being protected by our allies to whom we pay billions per year in military aid).
  Yet, when we want a journalist, exercising his free-press privileges, we can trap him in an embassy while he's seeking asylum from extradition.
  
  --
  
  These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
15. Re:Extradition from Sweden is easier by Anonymous Coward · 2014-02-13 10:48 · Score: 0
  
  Our Constitution guarantees a right to a speedy trial.
  The Constitution applies to US citizens on US soil, and Assange is not a US citizen, and the US asking to extrodite him doesn't have to touch US soil. Even if he were a US citizen and were brought onto US soil, there is a dangerous exception in current law (in violation of the right to due process): The NDAA includes a clause for the indefiniate detention of even US citizens without trial if they are suspected of terrorism. So, all the US has to do, is claim that releasing the Manning documents is terrorism, and no trial, no appeals, no Supreme Court to hear the case.
  Tell that to people arrested for Alien and Sedition under Adams. (US citizens arrested and held without trial)
  Tell that to the Japanese during World War II. (US citizens and legal aliens arrested and held without trial)
  Tell that to the prisoners in GITMO.
  
  Guantanomo ... where I will agree we have imprisoned enemy combatants (ie. Prisoners of War)
  No one in GITMO is a prisoner of war, but enemy combantants. If they were legitamite prisoners of war:
  1. War would have to have been declared. It was not.
  2. The Geneva Convention would apply and "advanced interrogations" would not be allowed
  3. There would be a military tribunal hearing their cases, this is not the case for most of the GITMO detainees.
  
  not subject to the Constitutional projections
  Neither would extend to Julian, a Australasian who was living in Sweeden at the time of his "crime." Moreover, there is no US law forbidding the press (US or foreign) or private foreign national (or private US civilian) from printing US classified information that is leaked to them. The person with clearance who has sworn to hold the secrets, and then leaks the information, is legal at fault (Manning is legally guilty -- though I'd argue it was moral thing to do).
16. Re:Extradition from Sweden is easier by Anonymous Coward · 2014-02-13 13:07 · Score: 0
  
  You are obviously not from the US so let me explain this to you. Our Constitution guarantees a right to a speedy trial. If JA wants a speedy trial, he'll get one, and will not "rot in a US jail for life" unless he was convicted and given a life sentence (Which in the US translates to roughly 10 years depending on your age and the leniency of your parole board)
  Citation? Many other factors including race of victim, race of criminal, victim status (was victim a cop?) and so on. And oh yeah, jurisdiction. Life in Florida or Texas means "life" aka you leave only upon your death.
  Life imprisonment on average means 17 years BEFORE possibility of parole unless you are a juvenile. Which JA isn't.
17. Re:Extradition from Sweden is easier by Anonymous Coward · 2014-02-14 05:32 · Score: 0
  
  I saw it on a JFK and Moon Landing site, too. It must be valid.
18. Re:Extradition from Sweden is easier by Anonymous Coward · 2014-02-14 05:37 · Score: 0
  
  Enemy Combatants are not prisoners of war, and therein is the problem. EPWs must be combatants who were abiding, or attempting to abide, by Geneva and Hague--fighting in a uniform (a simple armband suffices), against other combatants, making efforts to avoid collateral casualties, and agreeing to fair treatment of prisoners and wounded.
  Attempting to set off bombs on buses, in mosques, in markets, does not count as abiding by the above.
  Legally, and numerous international war crimes trials support this, they could just be shot dead in a ditch in the attempt, the end.
  The US has gone out of its way to recover, detain, and investigate these individuals, and quite a few were released. Incidentally, the Bush administration released a lot more of them than 0bama, who has yet to close Gitmo despite his promise to do so.
  Another complication is that he the home nations of several of these combatants have vowed to kill them upon return. I believe a couple of Mongolians are under threat of death from the Chinese government. So the "evil" US is keeping them alive by not returning them home.
  Actual EPWs are repatriated easily. Murderous thugs who happen to be on the battlefield are not EPWs, and it would be morally corrupt to compare the two. It would also make it very easy for any number of murderers--just insist you were fighting for (insert god and political cause here) and kill anyone you like, then get liberated as an EPW.
  Actually, they're a very good comparison to Assmange, who wants to shit all over the laws of any nation he doesn't like, rape women, and walk away because he's "exposing" something or other and therefore a whistleblower.
Mysterious lack of Assange DNA on evidence by GameboyRMH · 2014-02-13 01:16 · Score: 4, Interesting

This doesn't get mentioned enough:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2...

--
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
1. Re:Mysterious lack of Assange DNA on evidence by Theaetetus · 2014-02-13 03:34 · Score: 1
  
  This doesn't get mentioned enough:
  http://www.theregister.co.uk/2...
  It probably doesn't mentioned enough because Assange has already admitted to having sex with both women. His story is that it was consensual - trying to argue that he never actually had sex with them would be him changing that story, raising the questions of whether he was lying then or lying now, and what else is he lying about?
2. Re:Mysterious lack of Assange DNA on evidence by Uberbah · 2014-02-13 09:53 · Score: 1
  
  trying to argue that he never actually had sex with them would be him changing that story, raising the questions of whether he was lying then or lying now, and what else is he lying about?
  No, the question is what are Swedish authorities lying about, given the fact that Assange has offered to return to Sweden if the government promises not to hand him over to the United States. Sweden has so far ignored that offer, just as it's ignored offers to interview him by phone or by meeting Swedish investigators in the Ecuadorian embassy.
3. Re:Mysterious lack of Assange DNA on evidence by Theaetetus · 2014-02-13 10:09 · Score: 1
  
  trying to argue that he never actually had sex with them would be him changing that story, raising the questions of whether he was lying then or lying now, and what else is he lying about?
  No, the question is what are Swedish authorities lying about, given the fact that Assange has offered to return to Sweden if the government promises not to hand him over to the United States. Sweden has so far ignored that offer, just as it's ignored offers to interview him by phone or by meeting Swedish investigators in the Ecuadorian embassy.
  He's a suspect in a crime... Since when do suspects get to set conditions for interviews? You're telling me that if the police wanted to talk to some kid in New York about suspected drug dealing, he could say things like "you have to come to my house, or talk to me on the phone," and if they said "no, you're coming to the station," then they must be lying? That makes no sense.
  Here, that Sweden isn't making a bunch of promises to Assange means that they don't think it's reasonable that they have to make a bunch of promises to a suspect. No more, no less. It certainly doesn't mean that he never had sex with the women, as the GP poster was trying to imply.
4. Re:Mysterious lack of Assange DNA on evidence by Rich0 · 2014-02-14 10:15 · Score: 1
  
  He's a suspect in a crime... Since when do suspects get to set conditions for interviews?
  Since the moment he left their jurisdiction and entered the protection of another sovereign country.
  Sure, they can choose not to negotiate, but that doesn't really mean that he has to capitulate...
5. Re:Mysterious lack of Assange DNA on evidence by Uberbah · 2014-02-14 10:49 · Score: 1
  
  He's a suspect in a crime... Since when do suspects get to set conditions for interviews?
  Since he asked for and was given permission to leave Sweden in the first place? Since Sweden has a medival Star Chamber judicial system, where suspects can be thrown in solitary confinement without contact with the outside world?
  
  Here, that Sweden isn't making a bunch of promises to Assange
  Here is where Sweden is full of it, as are it's defenders. If this is really about rape allegations, then promise Assange he will be questioned on said rape allegations and not handed over to the United States. You are defending an indefensible position.
6. Re:Mysterious lack of Assange DNA on evidence by Theaetetus · 2014-02-14 10:51 · Score: 1
  
  He's a suspect in a crime... Since when do suspects get to set conditions for interviews?
  Since the moment he left their jurisdiction and entered the protection of another sovereign country.
  Sure, they can choose not to negotiate, but that doesn't really mean that he has to capitulate...
  And if they choose not to negotiate, it doesn't mean that they're lying. It simply means that they refuse to negotiate with a suspect of a crime, even if they can't force him to come back to Sweden.
7. Re:Mysterious lack of Assange DNA on evidence by Theaetetus · 2014-02-14 11:00 · Score: 1
  
  He's a suspect in a crime... Since when do suspects get to set conditions for interviews?
  Since he asked for and was given permission to leave Sweden in the first place? Since Sweden has a medival Star Chamber judicial system, where suspects can be thrown in solitary confinement without contact with the outside world?
  (i) Doesn't that make it even less likely that Sweden would let him set conditions on his interview, then? You seem to be arguing against yourself here.
  (ii) Suspects can be thrown in solitary confinement in the U.S. too. In both cases, it's for a limited period of time, and then the suspect must be released or charges must be brought and the suspect allowed to contact a lawyer. That's not to say that America has a perfect justice system, but I don't think anyone would call it a "medieval Star Chamber". Not anyone who isn't trying to push an entirely unrelated agenda, that is.
  
  Here is where Sweden is full of it, as are it's defenders. If this is really about rape allegations, then promise Assange he will be questioned on said rape allegations and not handed over to the United States. You are defending an indefensible position.
  I'm sure they will absolutely promise Assange that he will be questioned on the rape allegations. It's kinda the whole point of the interview, y'know. I doubt they want to ask him what his favorite flavor of ice cream is.
  As for the other, how can they possibly promise that? First, they have no power to do so - extradition is a judicial matter, and the police can't force the courts to do something. Second, why should they make any promises to a suspect? When has a suspect ever been allowed to force the police to make promises about handing them over to another jurisdiction as a condition of being questioned? Do you have any instance where someone else has gotten the things you're demanding for Assange?
  You're asking for something that is (i) legally impossible, and (ii) special treatment beyond that given to anyone else, ever. For both reasons, independently, yours is an indefensible position.
Sweden already handed others over by Anonymous Coward · 2014-02-13 01:21 · Score: 1

Sweden can extradite a suspected criminal to any country that asks, no appeal.
The UK can extradate a criminal only if the act is a crime in the UK's regime (e.g. you can't extradite to Saudi Arabia someone who draws a picture of Mohammed smoking a cock) and only to a few countries, the USA being one, without having some evidence that a case needs to be answered.
So your bullshit call is complete and utter uninformed and INTENTIONALLY AND GLADLY uninformed bollocks.
The pussy... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-02-13 01:25 · Score: 0

...should stop hiding and let himself be taken into custody.
1. Re:The pussy... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-02-13 01:31 · Score: 0
  
  Good of you to say so Citizen, we're now conducting random "interviews" for the security of our great Nation.
Treat him like everyone else by DaveV1.0 · 2014-02-13 01:38 · Score: 1, Insightful

And, like everyone else, the prosecutor should interrogate him in the town/city where the crime was committed.

Refusing to return to the country with jurisdiction and demanding to be interrogated in a third country is special treatment.

--
There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
1. Re:Treat him like everyone else by Anonymous Coward · 2014-02-13 02:35 · Score: 1
  
  "And, like everyone else, the prosecutor should interrogate him in the town/city where the crime was committed."
  Nope, this was never a requirement of ANYONE ELSE. So why is it doing it to him "treat[ing] him like everyone else"?
  Hell, Sweden has questioned someone on a murder charge overseas. And they've never used an EAW for a "wanted to question on their side of a story on a rape accusation [not charge]".
If this argument had any legal standing by Martin+S. · 2014-02-13 01:53 · Score: 1

If this argument had any legal standing it would present it in court not in the media. IMHO it is just another example of the Assange's egotism and narcissism
1. Re:If this argument had any legal standing by LaughingVulcan · 2014-02-13 03:37 · Score: 1
  
  If this argument had any legal standing it would present it in court not in the media. IMHO it is just another example of the Assange's egotism and narcissism
  And if the legal investigation had any legitimacy it would have been buried years ago. I find it hard to believe that a prosecutor, anywhere, anywhen, would invest this amount of time and effort in an attempt to investigate a borderline rape complaint across borders, where the complainants are shaky etc. Lovely to think there would be agencies and bureaucrats so dedicated to justice that they'd dog every rape allegation in such fashion. But the world don't work that way. Unless, of course, they have some other reason for having a hard-on for Assange.
  So, if it was your ass in the crack, you'd just fly back to Sweden, then. You wouldn't try to use whatever channels you have access to, to call in the world to view the bullshit?
2. Re:If this argument had any legal standing by durin · 2014-02-13 03:40 · Score: 1
  
  Why would they do that when it hasn't even come to the courts yet? This is about the prosecutor wanting to conduct an interview in Sweden, and refusing to go outside Sweden to do the interview.
  
  --
  Why, yes! I AM new here.
3. Re:If this argument had any legal standing by Megol · 2014-02-13 04:49 · Score: 1
  
  Well in some countries there is something called a legal system. If someone in a certain position becomes aware of something that can be criminal they have to enter it into the system (that's commonly called a police report). Then the case will go through the system which - in most cases at least will lead to questioning of all involved parts. This is this early stage Assange doesn't want to be part of.
  In short what you are requesting is something that is strictly speaking illegal. Why should a case be thrown out just because you have a hard-on for the accused?
Several oddities by Anonymous Coward · 2014-02-13 02:05 · Score: 1

Firstly (and the ONLY case brought to the UK courts to see if it was valid, NOTHING to do with probable guilt), it was filled in by the prosecutor, NOT a judge.
The EAW is for someone who has actually committed a serious crime and been found guilty and/or bount to court appearance. Julian asked to leave and was told he could. And they don't want to charge him (if they did, they would not be able to send him to the USA until after the court case, whereas if it's just to answer questions, there is no court case in Sweden to get out of the way and the foreign minister can just sign Julian away to US authorities).
The EAW contains the CLAIMS that the PROSECUTOR wishes to ask about, not the charges he's facing, as is supposed to happen.
1. Re:Several oddities by Goaway · 2014-02-13 10:15 · Score: 1
  
  The EAW is for someone who has actually committed a serious crime and been found guilty and/or bount to court appearance.
  Why do you believe this?
2. Re:Several oddities by Anonymous Coward · 2014-02-14 02:12 · Score: 0
  
  "Why do you believe this?"
  Because it is the case.
3. Re:Several oddities by Goaway · 2014-02-14 21:58 · Score: 1
  
  Feel free to quote the appropriate law.
We? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-02-13 02:11 · Score: 0

We? You're part of the govt?
No? Then stop saying we. You have no part and have no stake. So shut the fuck up.
Re:Coward by Anonymous Coward · 2014-02-13 03:01 · Score: 0

So you're saying the problem is that the Swedish politicians won't make a guarantee that they cannot legally make? O.o
Do you really want to know? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-02-13 03:26 · Score: 1

"why didn't the USA try to extradite him from the UK during that time? "
Because the extradition only applies if the crime is one that applies in the UK. Being a non-US residient and not bound by any non-disclosure, JA's actions are not illegal in the UK, therefore not an extraditable offence.
1. Re:Do you really want to know? by Goaway · 2014-02-14 23:06 · Score: 1
  
  So since he would need the UK's approval for being extradited from Sweden too, he'd be perfectly safe going there, since they wouldn't give it.
Human Rights by JimSadler · 2014-02-13 03:50 · Score: 1

I don't know a thing about law in Europe or England but is a man required to respond to questioning when accused? Considering the danger in which Julian lives if there is any question asked at all it should be by telephone. And he should have legal counsel well versed in the laws of all nations involved in the dispute. Frankly if hard proof is less than available the accusations are without substance anyway. The US wants him so badly that they would hire people to make all kinds of allegations to get their hands on him.
1. Re:Human Rights by Anonymous Coward · 2014-02-13 04:25 · Score: 0
  
  I don't know a thing about law in Europe or England but is a man required to respond to questioning when accused?
  The process is that the accused is asked to tell their side of the story as well as the accusers, and this is combined with any other information and possible evidence from both sides to decide if (a) there IS actually a case to answer and thus a full investigation is justified and (b) support a trial where normal, well established legal processes are performed to establish guilt and level of punishment/fines.
  This is criminal law, so not responding, sticking your fingers in your ears and singing "la la la, I cannot hear you" is not going to make it go away, but instead serves as an indication that you do not respect the law's attempt to uncover the facts. Assange's supporters (if any left), would, of course argue that it's all a setup, but the best way to prove this is by letting the process take place.
  The arguments that the US is behind this are too ridiculous to even consider. The US has better ties with the UK than with Sweden, and from what I have seen so far, the US is well aware that leaving Assange alone to dig deeper is far smarter than making him a martyr by rendition and provision of a nice orange jumpsuit.
  Since he's fled UK justice by going into that embassy it's been nice and quiet around Assange, despite various attempts to ride along with other people such as Snowden.
  IMHO, Assange's main worry is not the US, but being thrown out on his ear after a 15 minute hearing in which facts are established, possible with a tiny fine. That would make him look massively foolish after all the claims of him & supporters about a US conspiracy, whereas in reality it's simply a result of a situation he created himself, and which he could have stopped before it escalated. To me, the way he has been behaving has guilt plastered all over it, but it's up to the legal system to decide guilt or not. That's what you sign up to when you plan to go living in a country.
2. Re:Human Rights by Anonymous Coward · 2014-02-13 04:57 · Score: 0
  
  "This is criminal law, so not responding, sticking your fingers in your ears and singing "la la la, I cannot hear you" is not going to make it go away"
  But this doesn't mean you are compelled to respond.
  Please answer the query made, not one you make up to answer instead:
  "is a man required to respond to questioning when accused?"
  And the answer is "No".
  However, not responding may damage your case.
3. Re:Human Rights by horigath · 2014-02-13 07:05 · Score: 1
  
  I don't know a thing about law in Europe or England but is a man required to respond to questioning when accused
  In Swedish law, yes. The UK agreed to extradition even though he hasn't been charged because they considered the request for questioning to serve an equivalent purpose under Swedish criminal law, and that the authority to call him in was real—because the actual laying of charges comes later in the process than it does in Anglo-style criminal systems.
None of that recap was factual by Anonymous Coward · 2014-02-13 04:08 · Score: 0

It was entirely fictitious.
Visit the UK! by Anonymous Coward · 2014-02-13 04:28 · Score: 0

The most repressive first world country on Earth!
1. Re:Visit the UK! by Anonymous Coward · 2014-02-13 06:30 · Score: 0
  
  > The most repressive first world country on Earth!
  Oh, that's why there is always tourists next to stonehenge? The tv ad promised stones with no people around, and it's big disappointment that they let tourists ruin the landscape.
Comsi comsi... by elgholm · 2014-02-13 04:37 · Score: 1

I never liked the guy, just saying, and he has probably done something bad with the women accusing him, but the whole thing is quite spectacular. Had it been someone else, the swedish prosecutor would gladly allow him to be questioned in the UK, and then - perhaps - called for an extradiction if something comes up that warrants that, after the interog. There's something fishy about the whole thing: the case, the women, the prosecutor, the "escape", etc.. mmm... I know that I think... Wanna hear? Ok.. here it goes: 1. Guy has megalomania. 2. Get's women drunk, tries to sleep with them, and does. 3. Women regret the thing, or tried to say no to him (see point 1). 4. Women contacts police. 5. "Shiaaat, I'm Julian Ass.. The U.S of A will hunt me down for this..." 6. The U.S. of A hunts him down. These cases, "the-woman-say-no-in-somewhat-of-a-drunk-state-and-the-guy-has-megalomani-and-the-whole-thing-gets-complicated", we have them all the time nowadays. Said thing. A no is a no, no mather how drunk you are. Disclaimer; I'm swedish. PS. By the way, I'm on Mac OS X, what happened to my CR/LF?
he is practially in prison by Anonymous Coward · 2014-02-13 05:52 · Score: 0

albeit a nicer one @ Ecuadorian Embassy
The US doesn't want him anyway by Anonymous Coward · 2014-02-13 08:02 · Score: 0

How can he be accused of treason in the US if he is not a US citizen?
Careful now. You should know that presenting facts to a believer doesn't get you very far, especially if your facts goes against their narrative.

In any event, the US doesn't want him. They've said they wouldn't charge him. I know, I know, you can't believe that statement because it, again, goes against the martyr, fighting the big bad US narrative. But riddle me this, Batman, why the hell would the US want to deal with him? He didn't steal classified info, and he isn't accused of stealing classified material. He became a nuisance because he published classified material. However, every once and a while threats of charges get levied against reporters for this when they're given classified material, and in all cases the reporters win out. The whole news industry sides with them, and they would in this case as well. The US knows this, and frankly they wouldn't want to deal with it. It would give him more opportunity to inflate his ego even further, he would end up winning his case, we'd probably end up with another over-the-top horrid movie about him, and the rest of you can suck up to his martyr complex.

I know. It is a bit of a let down to find out that you (or your hero) isn't as important as you think he is. Back in the 90's when they caught the Unibomber, there were CEOs of big companies who were a bit perturbed that they weren't on Kazinski's list because it made them feel like they weren't as important as the ones who were on his list.
Lord by Anonymous Coward · 2014-02-13 08:42 · Score: 0

You are naive.
but you're probably just another shill on slashdot...
really? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-02-13 09:08 · Score: 0

There's nothing in the extradition treaty between Italy and US that prevents someone to be tried in Italy according to the Italian procedures and their trials/appeals system. Italian tribunals are not bound by American policies when conducting a trial.
You said correctly "under US law", but that does not apply to a trial in Italy.
not in the US by Anonymous Coward · 2014-02-13 09:14 · Score: 0

You said right "in the US..." however a trial in Italy does not have to follow US procedures; if that was true I can guarantee no conviction in an Italian court would allow for extraditions; there are some limitations in the extradition treaty (for example you can not be extradited for crimes related to military action, as a jet pilot took advantage of years ago) but nothing about trial procedures.
Temporary Surrender by Anonymous Coward · 2014-02-13 09:25 · Score: 0

It would be easier for the US to get him extradited from the UK than from Sweden.
Yes Sweden (as part of the EU) has lots of safeguards. However there is a backdoor, called "Temporary Surrender".
Essentially, sweden can "lend" Assange to the US and get him back after he has served any sentence in the US (assuming he ever gets out)
And in the case of extradition from the UK, their legal system has a pesky idea of "cruel and unusual punishment" which would prevent Assange from being extradited to the US if there is any chance of such things as: the death penalty, torture, being locked up in Guantanamo for life, etc.
Sweden is unlike anywhere else by Uberbah · 2014-02-13 09:38 · Score: 1

....in the first world. They may have hippie health care and higher education, but their judicial system is a medieval star chamber.

And, like everyone else, the prosecutor should interrogate him in the town/city where the crime was committed.

Except, unlike anywhere else in the first world, you do not have the right to have an attorney present while being interrogated by police or prosecutors. Who can hold you in custody for months without a hearing or outside contact.

Refusing to return to the country with jurisdiction and demanding to be interrogated in a third country is special treatment.
Except it's not. Swedish authorities have done just that before, but refuse to do so with Assange. For some reason.
Besides, this is all moot given the fact that Assange has offered to return to Sweden if the government promises not to then hand him over to the U.S., but Swedish authorities refuse to do so.
Which tells anyone with a function brain that there's a motivation here that has nothing to do with rape allegations.
1. Re:Sweden is unlike anywhere else by Theaetetus · 2014-02-13 10:20 · Score: 1
  
  Except, unlike anywhere else in the first world, you do not have the right to have an attorney present while being interrogated by police or prosecutors.
  Got a citation? Because this site seems to say the opposite:
  
  Who will be present at the questioning?
  You will be questioned by the police. One or more police officers may carry out the questioning. The prosecutor will not normally be present at the questioning. If you are suspected of a crime for which you are entitled to have a lawyer, you can request that a lawyer is appointed for you and is present at the questioning.
  Can I see a lawyer?
  If you are arrested, you have the right to ask for a public defence counsel to be appointed for you. This will be done by the district court at the request of the prosecutor.
2. Re:Sweden is unlike anywhere else by Theaetetus · 2014-02-13 10:22 · Score: 1
  
  Besides, this is all moot given the fact that Assange has offered to return to Sweden if the government promises not to then hand him over to the U.S., but Swedish authorities refuse to do so.
  Which tells anyone with a function brain that there's a motivation here that has nothing to do with rape allegations.
  Why should they make promises to a suspect of a crime? When is this a requirement anywhere else, or for any other suspected rapist? And why does that make you assume there's a motivation that has nothing to do with rape allegations, rather than say, a motivation to not make promises that they aren't required to make?
3. Re:Sweden is unlike anywhere else by Uberbah · 2014-02-14 11:00 · Score: 1
  
  Why should they make promises to a suspect of a crime?
  
  Why are you concern trolling? Sweden uses pretrial detention and holding suspects incommunicado to such an extent that it was heavily criticized by the UN Committee Against Torture. Because Sweden has a penchant for handing people over to the U.S. who are then sent overseas to be tortured.
  Because, if this is about rape allegations, there is no excuse whatsoever for limiting it to rape allegations and promising not to hand Assange over to the U.S.
4. Re:Sweden is unlike anywhere else by Theaetetus · 2014-02-14 11:24 · Score: 1
  
  Why should they make promises to a suspect of a crime?
  Why are you concern trolling?
  In what possible way is this concern trolling? Concern trolling is when you pretend to have a group's interests at heart, but then recommend that some beneficial action shouldn't be taken out of "concern" for some imagined and unlikely consequence: e.g. "abortion really should be legal in all cases, but because no medical procedure is 100% safe, we have to ban it in all cases to protect women."
  Pointing out that cops never make promises to suspects, nor are they ever required to? No.
  
  Sweden uses pretrial detention and holding suspects incommunicado to such an extent that it was heavily criticized by the UN Committee Against Torture. Because Sweden has a penchant for handing people over to the U.S. who are then sent overseas to be tortured.
  Even if true (and frankly, the "they have a penchant for something" is such a weaselly statement that you could never show it was true), that still doesn't address why you think Sweden would make promises to Assange. In fact, if all of that was true, then you're arguing that Sweden is such an evil country that they'd never make the promises you're claiming they should make. In which case, their refusal to make those promises certainly doesn't mean they're lying, as the GP suggested.
  Because, if this is about rape allegations, there is no excuse whatsoever for limiting it to rape allegations and promising not to hand Assange over to the U.S.
  Except for the fact that (i) they have no power to make that promise, as I pointed out in my other reply to you; and (ii) as you noted above, Sweden never would make that promise, under any circumstances. Therefore, their refusal to make that promise doesn't somehow make this not about rape allegations.
Slight problem with your storyline by Uberbah · 2014-02-13 10:00 · Score: 1

To answer the charge of skipping bail, contempt of court, etc. Then he can - LIKE HE ALWAYS COULD HAVE - argue that he should be legitimately put on trial in a "friendly" country.
Except Sweden ALWAYS COULD HAVE taken up Assange on HIS OFFER TO RETURN TO SWEDEN if authorities promised that he would NOT be extradited to the U.S.
If it's really about answering rape allegations, then let it be about answering the goddamn rape allegations instead of an excuse to hand him over to get the Bradley Manning treatment.
1. Re:Slight problem with your storyline by Zironic · 2014-02-13 23:30 · Score: 2
  
  Sweden can't make any such promise because Extradition is a court matter and any politician bypassing the court in such a matter would be performing a major breach of the separation of powers.
2. Re:Slight problem with your storyline by Uberbah · 2014-02-14 10:42 · Score: 1
  
  Sweden can't make any such promise because Extradition is a court matter
  Repeating Big Lies you've been told doesn't make them true.
  "It is simply untrue that it is Swedish courts, rather than the Swedish government, who are the final decision-makers in extradition requests. It is equally untrue that the Swedish government has no final decision-making power regarding extradition requests that are legally sanctioned by the Swedish judiciary. These are not matters for reasonable debate. The law is clear."
3. Re:Slight problem with your storyline by Theaetetus · 2014-02-14 11:30 · Score: 1
  
  Sweden can't make any such promise because Extradition is a court matter
  Repeating Big Lies you've been told doesn't make them true.
  "It is simply untrue that it is Swedish courts, rather than the Swedish government, who are the final decision-makers in extradition requests. It is equally untrue that the Swedish government has no final decision-making power regarding extradition requests that are legally sanctioned by the Swedish judiciary. These are not matters for reasonable debate. The law is clear."
  I would be cautious to hang your argument on Greenwald's table pounding, considering that his support for that conclusion has been debunked by the very author he cites.
4. Re:Slight problem with your storyline by Uberbah · 2014-02-20 11:53 · Score: 1
  
  What do you mean "the" author, Slick? He cited four. Greenwald also went on to cite how Klamberg was contradicting himself all over the place.
  Next excuse for the inexcusable?
HOLY CRAP by Anonymous Coward · 2014-02-13 10:01 · Score: 0

apparently I'm a serial rapist!
Consider the slashdot interface by dbIII · 2014-02-13 12:45 · Score: 1

"Debated" - don't dignify it with such a title. Also it's obvious that the little spot with a different color you see on my posts attracted your attention. You clear just wanted to annoy me and didn't even bother to properly read what you'd replied to (missing the "I think" and other obvious signs that it's an opinion and not an assertion of fact) before putting in the pointless insults. Do you need attention that badly? What is going wrong with your life to drive that? Why are you pretending to be sub-literate just to annoy others? What is your damage?
1. Re:Consider the slashdot interface by Raenex · 2014-02-13 21:39 · Score: 1
  
  Also it's obvious that the little spot with a different color you see on my posts attracted your attention.
  I guess this means you think I foe'd you? Sorry, wrong again. I don't foe or friend anybody -- both lists are empty. I see you under "Freaks", meaning you foe'd me, but that doesn't give me any indicator. Get over yourself. All I did was pick up on your hypocrisy and throw it back in your face, deservedly.
  
  missing the "I think" and other obvious signs that it's an opinion and not an assertion of fact
  We've been over this. It doesn't save you from your naive statement, and trying to pin a naive statement on Assange is just a dumb and clumsy way on your part to save face.
  
  before putting in the pointless insults [..] What is your damage?
  Apply these to yourself. Lots of insults, all because your fragile ego can't handle being wrong. You feel free to call somebody else's view naive, but can't take it when you are called out on your own naive statements.
Since you think I was born yesterday by dbIII · 2014-02-13 21:56 · Score: 1

Since you think I was born yesterday I'll spell it out to you.
I foe'd you for obvious reasons last time so you've got that little spot that means "freak" above every post.
To avoid the wriggle room of pretended stupitiy by dbIII · 2014-02-13 21:57 · Score: 1

so you've got that little spot that means "freak" above every post of mine you see
1. Re:To avoid the wriggle room of pretended stupitiy by Raenex · 2014-02-13 23:12 · Score: 1
  
  so you've got that little spot that means "freak" above every post of mine you see
  No, I don't. I browse without Javascript and no background colors, so if it does show you a spot, it doesn't under my settings. The simple truth is I don't give two shits about you as a person. I replied to your post solely on the content. I'm sorry your fragile ego can't handle it and you have to try and invent reasons for it, but there is no other reason.
2. Re:To avoid the wriggle room of pretended stupitiy by dbIII · 2014-02-13 23:25 · Score: 1
  
  So you cannot remember the homosexual fantasy you shoved in my face that caused me to mark you as a foe? Do you do that a lot?
3. Re:To avoid the wriggle room of pretended stupitiy by Raenex · 2014-02-13 23:46 · Score: 1
  
  *laugh* I'm guessing you're making that up, but sure, link away if you're not. Sounds like you're getting more desperate with each post to salvage something out of this thread. Poor, fragile ego.
4. Re:To avoid the wriggle room of pretended stupitiy by dbIII · 2014-02-14 12:45 · Score: 1
  
  You really can't remember?
5. Re:To avoid the wriggle room of pretended stupitiy by Raenex · 2014-02-14 13:09 · Score: 1
  
  Right, no link, as expected. You're making it up or have me confused with somebody else. Pretty pathetic way to end the thread on your part.
6. Re:To avoid the wriggle room of pretended stupitiy by dbIII · 2014-02-14 15:22 · Score: 1
  
  You want me to link to one of YOUR posts or your own memory?
7. Re:To avoid the wriggle room of pretended stupitiy by Raenex · 2014-02-14 15:44 · Score: 1
  
  You want me to link to one of YOUR posts or your own memory?
  Have you stop beating your wife?
  Yes, if you make a claim, it's up to you to provide evidence for it. Since you haven't, it falls under the file of either making shit up or confusing me with somebody else. You really have stooped to a new low here.
8. Re:To avoid the wriggle room of pretended stupitiy by dbIII · 2014-02-14 16:15 · Score: 1
  
  Stop playing to a non-existent audience. We both know what I'm talking about and nobody else cares.
9. Re:To avoid the wriggle room of pretended stupitiy by Raenex · 2014-02-14 17:09 · Score: 1
  
  We both know what I'm talking about and nobody else cares.
  Yes, we both know you're full of shit and have dragged this out to an embarrassing level, all because your fragile ego can't handle being wrong. I'm done wrestling with the pig.
10. Re:To avoid the wriggle room of pretended stupitiy by dbIII · 2014-02-14 20:34 · Score: 1
  
  Hey - you are the one that decided to repeat a past victory by trolling a past victim, and try to get away with by using a stupid "slashdot is monochrome to me" excuse. You also know that I'm unlikely to spend a day or more going through hundreds of your undoubtedly disgusting posts just to find one nauseating sodomy fantasy you wrote about me. Even if I did find it you'd probably reply with "not me, I got hacked" or similar unlikely thing like your "I browse without Javascript and no background colors" which doesn't appear to hide that spot at all - funny about that isn't it?
  
  I hope I ruined a bit of your trolling fun this time.
11. Re:To avoid the wriggle room of pretended stupitiy by Raenex · 2014-02-15 00:55 · Score: 1
  
  similar unlikely thing like your "I browse without Javascript and no background colors" which doesn't appear to hide that spot at all - funny about that isn't it?
  Once again, you are wrong.
  I tell you what, if you find that alleged post of mine, I'll find the post where you admitted to being into child porn. One baseless charge is as good as another, isn't it?
12. Re:To avoid the wriggle room of pretended stupitiy by dbIII · 2014-02-15 02:12 · Score: 1
  
  You're not fooling anyone. We both know you just came back to troll again.
13. Re:To avoid the wriggle room of pretended stupitiy by Raenex · 2014-02-15 04:07 · Score: 1
  
  Whatever helps you sleep at night. Your bruised ego needs the rest.
14. Re:To avoid the wriggle room of pretended stupitiy by dbIII · 2014-02-15 14:07 · Score: 1
  
  http://science.slashdot.org/st...
15. Re:To avoid the wriggle room of pretended stupitiy by Raenex · 2014-02-16 00:51 · Score: 1
  
  Having lost the argument in every way imaginable, you fall back on the lame insult every yahoo on the Internet uses in lieu of an argument, "troll".
  To put the final nail in your coffin, I will refute the slander you tossed out in a desperate attempt to salvage something in this thread:
  "So you cannot remember the homosexual fantasy you shoved in my face that caused me to mark you as a foe? Do you do that a lot?"
  You failed to substantiate your slanderous claims. I will now show you, for the final time, to be the horrible person and piece of shit that you are.
  I searched my email, and found the Slashdot notification of when you foe'd me.:
  
  From: slashdot@slashdot.org
  Subject: [Slashdot] Relationship Change
  Date: Thu, 18 Jul 2013 00:16:51 +0000
  dbIII (701233) has made you their foe.
  I looked at my posts from that period, and found my last post to you right before you foe'd. I also read the thread around it, and nothing in it was like you claimed. I did see the same patterns of you making up stuff and being unable to substantiate your claims. The same pattern of staking out a stupid position (and this one was a doozy, which I've bolded below) and trying every lame attempt possible to salvage it. Here's my last post before rightfully ignoring you:
  
  More lies that have already been addressed. I said torture can work, not that it should be done.
  Who's the evil one here? It was you who took the position that twisting arms behind backs and choking to get information is not torture, aligning yourself with the "enhanced interrogation" position of the Bush administration post 9/11.
  Who has failed to respond to actual dictionary definitions and quotes from the UN convention against torture? Who has ludicrously claimed that Amnesty International would not define such as torture?
  You.
  Who has lied repeatedly with no response when called out on it? Who has levied charges of lying, but refuses to quote the actual lie?
  You.
  Who was either so stupid or attempting to obfuscate that when asked for a dictionary definition, claims they don't want to make up their own instead of just providing the dictionary definition?
  You.
  Who is so stupid or trying to obfuscate that when asked to "quote my lie", comes back with his own generality instead quoting my "lie"?
  You.
  You're a piece of shit, and I'm tired of talking to you.
  You think seven months later I would purposefully respond to you to go through a repeat of this? You're pathetic. I probably should mark you as a foe and make sure it displays in my client, because talking to pieces of shits like you is a complete waste of time.
16. Re:To avoid the wriggle room of pretended stupitiy by dbIII · 2014-02-16 01:22 · Score: 1
  
  Having lost the argument in every way imaginable
  As far as I see it this is not some two sided childish argument game as you seem to think it is but instead some petty bully getting his rocks off at someone else's expense.
  Funny how you are not proud enough of your sodomy fantasy to quote it.
17. Re:To avoid the wriggle room of pretended stupitiy by dbIII · 2014-02-16 01:23 · Score: 1
  
  You think seven months later I would purposefully respond to you to go through a repeat of this
  Look above and you are the one that jumped on my post to play this stupid game.
18. Re:To avoid the wriggle room of pretended stupitiy by dbIII · 2014-02-16 01:49 · Score: 1
  
  I looks like I owe you an apology. Instead of being the "this is what I want to do to you" sicko you turn out to merely be the "torture is good" weirdo troll. I mixed you up with the other person. I'm sorry about that. That doesn't excuse you from coming in to play your stupid troll game at my expense again.
  However you have to expect some sort of fallout like this when you have a hobby of deliberately baiting people so you seem to have a lot of false anger from a very obvious response.
  Good work on mocking up that screenshot. Many would have believed you.
  So congrats - you have won your incredibly fucking stupid game. The only good thing is you won't be able to pretend you've never heard of me next time you try to play it at my expense.
  I hope this has been a frustrating enough experience for you to get you to take up a different hobby instead of this childish trolling.
Nope, that is a complete work of fiction by Anonymous Coward · 2014-02-14 02:34 · Score: 0

So please shut the fuck up intil you know what the hell you're talking about.
Says the prosecutor by Anonymous Coward · 2014-02-14 03:51 · Score: 0

Whereas the judge who would have seen the statement of the woman concerned would know that she said she WASN'T ASLEEP, but drowsy. I.e. capable of joining in to the act, which she did, then got out and made him breakfast.
I don't know many women who, having been raped, pop out to the shops to get some grub for the bloke who did it. Then make it.
Another reason for Assange to stay in the Embassy by Anonymous Coward · 2014-02-14 07:58 · Score: 0

If he were to decide to leave, he'd be an easy target for a drone assassination.
One last thing by dbIII · 2014-02-16 01:56 · Score: 1

You bolded your own false strawman assertion of what you pretended I'd written instead of an actual quote from me that said no such thing and then are calling me a lair?
I just keeps on getting more ridiculous. Please take up a different hobby instead of trying to be a master at baiting - you may be good at it but it's a huge waste of your time and something to fill in slow time for me.